Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LYMINGTON) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — COMMON INFORMERS BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Schedule.—(ACTS PROVIDING FOR COMMON INFORMER ACTIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 30, at the end, insert:


3&amp;4Will. 4. c. 90.
The Lighting and Watching Act, 1833.
Section fifty.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Lionel Heald: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment relates to an Act of Parliament, The Lighting and Watching Act, 1833, the existence of which was discovered by an industrious person in the other place. It should have found its place among the other 40 Statutes in the Schedule. I desire to apologise to the House for my negligence in not including it originally. I can assure the House that I have it with me now and that I can explain how it operates, if that should be necessary.

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just told us that he has the Act with him. I think that he ought to explain the effect of it. If he is not prepared to do that, may I ask what the significance of the Amendment is? Where does the Lighting and Watching Act come in, and what powers do common informers have under that Act? Are we extending or reducing the powers of the common informer by adopting this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Heald: Mr. Heald rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman can speak again only by leave of the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How does this unknown and anonymous Statute affect Scotland?

Mr. Heald: Perhaps I may explain, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, that the Lighting and Watching Act, 1833, is long and complicated. It provides penalties against misbehaviour by the overseers and for wilfully destroying or injuring watchhouses, lamps, etc. There are various other powers. There is or was, in accordance with standard provisions, a right to the common informer to obtain a part of the penalties which had to be paid by people found to be guilty of any of these offences. It is proposed by the Bill to abolish the liability of individuals to pay portions of such penalties to a common informer and to substitute for it the ordinary criminal proceedings.

Question put, and agreed to.

NEW STREETS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY OWNERS OF NEW BUILDINGS IN RESPECT OF STREET WORKS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 8, leave out "front" and insert "have a frontage."

11.10 a.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment, linked up with subsequent Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, after "erected," insert "or a previous owner thereof."

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is intended to remedy a small drafting omission. A number of the subsequent Lords Amendments are of a drafting or clarifying nature.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:
(f) in a case where the local authority, being satisfied that the street is not, and is not likely within a reasonable time to become, joined to a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, by notice in writing exempt the building from this section;

Mr. Mitchison: I be to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a case which might occur. If it did, it ought obviously to be exempted from the operation of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3 line 10, after "of" insert:
the British Transport Commission or any Executive established by or under section five of the Transport Act, 1947,

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is designed to relieve the anxiety of the Railway Executive about interference with their station approaches. I doubt if it is necessary, but I see no objection to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(EXTENT OF ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 17, after "shall" insert "within one week."

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is designed merely to ensure that certain matters shall in certain events be communicated by a rural

district council to the county council within a certain time.

Question put, and agreed.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 34, insert:
(5) The power of making orders under subsection (2) and subsection (4) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment defines and limits the order-making power under the Bill. It seems advisable.

Question put, and agreed

Clause 10.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 16, leave out from the first "shall" to the end of line 18 and insert:
in the case of any private street in the borough or district, by resolution determine whether the said local Act or such one of the other codes as is so in force is to be the appropriate private street works code for the purposes of this Act in relation to that street, and shall publish any such resolution by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating within the borough or district and otherwise in such manner as the council thinks sufficient for giving notice thereof to all persons interested.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment clarifies the position with regard to the private street works code and gives the local authorities some power to make a decision in the matter.

Question put, and agreed.

Clause 11.—(SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 51, leave out "July" and insert "October."

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We might have inserted July or some other time. Perhaps October will do.

Question put, and agreed.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LAIRAGES.)

11.18 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "in the lairage."
It might be for the convenience of the House if I dealt also with the subsequent Amendments to the Bill.
In Committee doubts were expressed whether Clause 3 was sufficiently narrowly drawn to prevent any evasion of the intentions of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food very kindly offered the Committee and myself his assistance in re-drafting and providing a Clause to avoid the defects of Clause 3, which we now seek to delete. I was delighted to get his offer, and I had the advantage of meeting the Parliamentary Secretary in his Department and enjoying the services of the Parliamentary draftsmen. Our object in re-drafting has been to draw more narrowly the provisions relating to the last 24 hours of the life of the animals and to make their enforcement more easy.
There is no doubt that these Amendments will meet the desires of the Standing Committee, and they are both reasonable and practicable from the point of view of the management of a slaughter house or knacker's yard. We have made it abundantly clear that the watering requirement is separate from the requirement for feeding.
In Committee it was argued that feeding was a comprehensive term which included water as well as food. This was not so, and it was not intended that an animal should be without water even during the last 24 hours of its life. Secondly, instead of once in 24 hours, as appeared in the principal Act, or once every 12 hours, as in the Bill, a more easily enforceable and more reasonable and practicable solution has been found, mainly, requiring that the animal should be fed at least once during the 12 hours before midday each day and once during the 12-hour period following mid-day.
This makes the matter quite precise and avoids going back to the time when

the individual animal is brought into the establishment. The Amendment provides for the animal to have two feeds each day, and gives the person in charge of the animal the maximum freedom in meeting this requirement. Moreover, my second Amendment further improves the Bill by throwing on to the person having charge of the establishment the burden of proof that it was intended to slaughter during a specific period in any place where normal feeding requirements have not been complied with. That was the main point raised by various Members on both sides of the Committee. I have been advised by the Parliamentary draftsman that the words "in the lairage" should be omitted, but this is a point of drafting.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment arises largely from the considerations set out in paragraph 18 of the Rosebery Report, in which reference is made to the previous Act, which said:
Every occupier of a slaughter house or knacker's yard shall cause every animal brought to such slaughter house or knacker's yard for the purpose of being slaughtered to be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water and, when it is necessary, to confine any such animal for a period exceeding twenty-four hours with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food.
Anyone who has read the Appendix to the Rosebery Report will find that there was more compliance in the breach than in the observance, because the report goes on to say that there are a number of places where this rule is not carried out and that the licensing authorities should exercise supervision. The report continues:
Supervision is rendered more difficult by the fact that in many cases the lairage is at some distance from the slaughter house. In these cases the occupier only brings the horse to the slaughter house just before it is to be killed, so that even if he starves the horses while in lairage, he achieves a technical compliance with Section 2.
The Report went on to say that paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Slaughter of Animals Act should be amended to provide that where animals are kept in any place occupied in connection with the business of a slaughter house or knacker's yard, they should be provided with a sufficient quantity of


wholesome water and, when it is necessary to confine the animal for more than 24 hours, with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food. The Report continued:
If the Section is amended it would be as well to lay it down that where the animal was to be provided with the food this should be done at intervals of not more than 12 hours.
All of us in the Committee were conscious of the real drafting difficulties, and I join with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) in expressing appreciation for the help given by the Ministry of Food.

Mr. William Ross: I see the intention of the Amendment, but is it adequate for the purpose? The hon. Member said that this lays the onus of proof in the matter of feeding on the occupier of the lairage when there is no killing of the animals. But what is to be the nature of that proof? Subsection (3) says that in the case of animals where it is proved that it is intended to slaughter them for butcher's meat the occupier shall not be guilty. So it means that a person can neglect to provide the food laid down in the Bill and then, when someone comes along for inspection and discovers this, the occupier can say that the animal is to be killed within the next 12 hours.

Mr. Henry Brooke: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member seems to be addressing his remarks to the second Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the mover of this Amendment to refer to both his Amendments because they hang together.

Mr. Ross: That was my impression too. I should be happier if the hon. Gentleman could give us some idea how to avoid that difficulty. Judging by the present condition of some lairage, it is a point we have to watch carefully; otherwise the purpose of the Bill will be refuted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 9 to 11, and to insert:
shall cause it to be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food in each morning and each afternoon during which it is in confinement (including that in which it is brought into confinement):

Provided that no person shall be liable for a contravention of the requirement as to the provision of food hereby imposed—

(a) in the case of any animal, by reason of its not having been fed in the morning or afternoon in which it is slaughtered, or
(b) in the case of an animal which is slaughtered in any morning or afternoon for butchers' meat, by reason of its not having been fed in the preceding afternoon, or in the preceding morning, as the case may be, or
(c) in the case of an animal as to which it is proved that it was intended that it should be slaughtered for butcher's meat in a given morning or afternoon, by reason of its not having been fed in the preceding afternoon, or in the preceding morning, as the case may be.

In this provision the expressions 'morning' and 'afternoon' mean the periods of twelve hours ending and beginning respectively with mid-day.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. H. Brooke: I should like to congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) for taking so much trouble about this Amendment, and to confirm what was said a few minutes ago that we got into difficulties in Committee because it appeared that the Bill, as drafted, although it was done with the best intentions, left a loophole whereby a man could with impunity leave an animal unfed for 35 hours before the time it was slaughtered. Clearly that was not the intention of this House and, speaking as a member of the Standing Committee, I should like to assure hon. Members that the matter has been put right by this complicated Amendment which I hope will be agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I should be glad if I could have an answer to the question I asked.

Mr. Colegate: If I may answer that point, Mr. Speaker, I think the difficulty is not a real one. In any case one would have to prove an offence of this kind, and we could build up a most elaborate machinery in the hope that no offender could get past it. However, that is not practicable and, after consultation with the Ministry of Food and the Parliamentary draftsman, this appears to be the best solution in the circumstances.
11.30 a.m.
In that connection I would remind the hon. Member that there are many people interested in this matter, that there is


the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals amongst others, which maintains many inspectors. I have ascertained from my constituency that inspectors constantly work in liaison with the police authorities. They keep a very careful watch and, although I am not a lawyer and have to depend to some extent on the advice of hon. Friends, I think that this will bring about a very much needed improvement and that it will not be very easy for an offender to get away with any act of cruelty when this Measure becomes an Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(AMENDMENT OF PARA. 2 OF SECOND SCHEDULE TO PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 5, leave out second "of," and insert "to."— [Mr. Colegate.]

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951.
2. National Insurance Act, 1951.
3. Pet Animals Act, 1951.
4. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1951.
5. Telegraph Act, 1951.
6. Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951.
7. Common Informers Act, 1951.
8. Baptist and Congregational Trusts Act, 1951.
9. Royal Albert Hall Act, 1951.
10. London County Council (Money) Act, 1951.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

1. Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measures, 1923 to 1929 (Amendment) Measure, 1951.
2. Cathedrals (Appointed Commissions) Measure, 1951.
3. Benefices (Stabilization of Incomes) Measure, 1951.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "amended," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
as follows, that is to say, for the words from 'exceeding twenty-four hours' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words set out in subsection (1) of section one of this Act from 'exceeding twelve hours' to the end of that subsection.
This Amendment simply secures that there shall be similarity of the arrangements for the confinement in both slaughter houses, which is dealt with in the 1933 Act, and in the lairages, which is dealt with particularly in the Bill.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(FEEDING OF ANIMALS PRECEDING SLAUGHTER.)

Mr. Colegate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out Clause 3.
Clause 3 was inserted in the Bill, but it was agreed that the Amendment to which we have already agreed should be substituted for it. Since that Amendment has been accepted, it is necessary to delete the Clause.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Motion.
This Bill is concerned with the improvement in the conditions for animals awaiting slaughter. As one who first drew attention in an Adjournment debate some 2½ years ago to the slaughter of horses, which was then already taking place on a very large scale, and the methods which were employed in that slaughter, I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has used his good fortune in the Ballot to bring forward the Bill.
It will be recalled that at that time the very existence of some of our heavier breeds of horses was threatened if the slaughter was continued at a similar rate. Following representations which some of us jointly made afterwards to the then Minister of Food, a committee under the Earl of Rosebery was appointed to consider the whole subject. That Committee in their Report drew up certain specific recommendations, part of which are implemented in this Bill, as, indeed, is stated in the Preamble. I am pleased to see present the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mrs. Ganley), who was a member of the Rosebery Committee.
How necessary are these provisions is shown by the Report. It disclosed a position in and about the precincts of some of the slaughter houses which certainly should not be tolerated for an instant. As has already been said, this was a subject of much adverse comment in the appendices to the Report, which set out the results of individual visits of certain members of that Committee to slaughter houses in various parts of the country. They found, as is stated, that there was no evidence that animals had been fed, although they had arrived the previous day and had travelled long distances by sea and rail—for instance, from Ireland; and little evidence was found that the horses were likely to be fed, even though they awaited slaughter for still another 24 hours. There was no hay available, and in one case the hay that was in an adjoining shed was so covered with mildew that, quite obviously, it had not been used, and was not likely to be used, for the purposes for which it was ostensibly supplied.
I accompanied one of the members of the Committee to some of the slaughter houses and saw the conditions for myself. Undoubtedly, many of the horses were miserable and hungry, and there was considerable suffering. We saw water, for instance, which was dirty and had not been changed for many days. I need not, however, go further into this aspect, because anybody who reads the Report can see these facts set out very clearly.
As regards cattle and sheep, the position has, of course, been made worse by the shortage of accommodation in slaughter houses and the great overcrowding which now takes place. This has arisen to some extent as a result of

the war, when many slaughter houses were closed and slaughtering was concentrated in certain abattoirs under the Ministry of Food. Some of these undoubtedly are excellent—for instance, the abattoir in Manchester, but in many cases the accommodation is most inadequate, and they are often very small and out-of-date.
Many questions have been asked in the House as to when the Government are likely to improve matters in this direction. I know mere are several building schemes under consideration, but they have been deplorably slow. I hope that the new arrangements announced yester-day by the Government will not further delay the building—

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member is saying has nothing to do with the Third Reading of this Bill. We must devote ourselves to what is in the Bill and not to outside schemes.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sorry, Sir, if I went a little further than the Bill does, but what I was saying was concerned with the slaughter of animals, and I thought it was relevant to the Bill. I shall naturally not pursue that point except to say that I think that a high priority is required in that connection.
Taken in conjunction with the Transit of Horses Order, 1951, which came into operation on 19th March, and about which the Minister of Agriculture took considerable trouble, this Bill is a notable achievement in the direction of laying down improved conditions as regards watering and feeding before slaughter, as is the Order as regards improved conditions of travel by road and rail. By legislation we can go a long way towards remedying some of these bad conditions, but we cannot go the whole way. Whether these efforts are successful will depend on whether a vigorous watch is maintained by the local authorities and by the police, with the useful co-operation of the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors, who together must ensure compliance with these provisions.
It is obvious that not everyone will willingly co-operate, and much supervision will be needed. But if the provisions of the Bill, which will very shortly become an Act of Parliament, are carried into effect in the way in which the hon. Member for Burton and the House intend


them to be, the Bill will be another step forward in the direction of better treatment for the animals of this country, on which we so much depend.

.53 a.m.

Mr. Pannell: I am very glad to be the first Member on this side of the House to express appreciation of all the effort which the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colgate) has devoted to bringing this Bill before the House. I well remember a fortnight ago when he expected the Bill to come before us. You will not remember the occasion, Mr. Speaker, because you were not in your place, as the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, the business before us being the Finance Bill. As the minutes ticked away it seemed to me that the hon. Member for Burton looked more and more like a stricken animal himself in his anxiety that the Bill should not be lost.
I think it was well that consideration of the Bill was not reached at that time. The two Bills which were to have followed it seemed to me to be quite useless and of secondary importance to the Finance Bill. But I think that the whole House did regret on that day that consideration of the Bill was not possible then. We are pleased that it reaches its culmination this morning in a much calmer atmosphere than would have been the case at that time.
I hope that the passing of this Bill this morning will be some recompense to the hon. Member, who has put a lot of work into it. I am glad that the Government have found time for it today. If anyone wished to find a justification for the Bill he would do so not so much in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Export and Slaughter of Horses, from which I have previously quoted, and with the work of which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mrs. Ganley) was associated, but rather in the appendices to that Report. In one of these, reference is made to what is considered to be a good slaughter house. To quote—I will make no reference to the name—it states that the chief slaughterman said:
The horses were usually backed in before slaughter and a sack used to prevent the animals seeing the carcasses. I then asked to see the lairage and was shown about four small loose boxes and some stalls. There were 23 horses and ponies in this accommodation, which was far too cramped for the

purpose. There were eight small ponies in one box and seven in another, all herded together. They had apparently been bought the previous day at Chagford Fair, Dartmoor, and had been taken off the train that morning. There was adequate straw, but no signs of feed or water, though I was assured that they would be given hay and had been let out to the yard for water recently.
These are the sort of conditions that exist.
Those of us who have been charged with public health activities even in urban communities close to London know the extreme difficulty there is, because the law was far too weak in the old days. One of the characteristics of the English people is that they have not only a love of animals but a concern for the care of animals which often meets almost with derision from people abroad. Nevertheless, one can appreciate the shock that is caused in this country when anything comes from abroad, especially in the form of a work of literature, which indicates the way in which animals are treated in other places.
One can instance the international shock that was caused when Upton Sinclair's "Jungle" was let loose among the world. As I say, one can appreciate the shock that is caused because of our intense care of animals. In parenthesis, I would say that the author, in a moment of bitterness, said that he hoped that the book would make an impact on the hearts and humanity of the peoples of the world, "but it only touched their stomachs."
I believe it is true that anyone who can envisage the scenes that took place in Chicago in the old days would rather tend to think that we had a higher sense of humanitarianism than our American cousins. We have not required a book such as that to rouse us to a sense of awareness of all that is entailed in the slaughter of animals, and we are glad that from time to time Private Members' time is used in this House to bring forward Bills on which we all agree, on whichever side of the House we are, and which find their culmination on occasions such as this. The hon. Member for Burton is to be congratulated.

11.59 a.m.

Mrs. Ganley: I too wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) on having brought forward this Bill, which will to some extent alleviate what is in some instances almost the suffering that horses


have to undergo in being taken to slaughter. I had the honour of serving on the Committee to which reference has been made, and undertook the inspection of slaughter houses in and around London. It is perhaps true to say that in London there is rather closer supervision because of the knowledge and association of slaughter houses.
It is also true that in a number of instances it was shown, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) has said, that while there was provision for food there was not always evidence that food had been given, although it may have been, of course, that the horses were in and out of the slaughter house rather more quickly than made feeding necessary. In that event, the Amendment which has been accepted this morning will make a big difference, because it provides that a horse must be fed and watered within 12 hours, a very real improvement on the old provision. Within 12 hours of the slaughter there must have been some opportunity for feeding and also for watering.
While it is true that in some slaughter houses in London there was space for a large number of horses, it is also true that in some just outside London the usual accommodation for the animals was a field in which they were let loose, where of course they could eat the grass. But provision for water was not always in evidence. In some places there was no water available for the slaughter house, except that which could be brought in pails from a distance. When it is realised that those are the conditions operating at the present time, one feels grateful that a Bill of this kind has been brought in because its provisions will tend to alleviate the condition of the animals prior to slaughter.
We felt that there was a very real problem at the present time because no particular authority was responsible for slaughter houses and for the horses. We consider that it would be very much better if the local authority under the Health Acts or the Ministry of Food were definitely brought in so that it would be the business of somebody with authority to inspect these slaughter houses and see that the conditions are suitable. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having brought in this Bill, and I am

quite sure that its provisions will meet a real want.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I feel rather afraid to enter into this discussion because my trend of thought will be rather against the general feeling of the House. When I examined this problem I wondered what was our philosophy; how do we look upon this kind of thing in general? It has been said that the more civilised we become the more humane we are and the more kindly we act in many respects. When I saw this Bill I wondered whether it really is an indication of the higher form of civilisation in this country.
The other day I had a conversation with a vegetarian. He contended that one of the things which makes men brutal is because of their brutality to animals. That, he said, was why we were not moving into a more peaceful atmosphere. I began to wonder whether there was any truth in that argument, and I concluded that there was a good deal of truth in it. Here in this House we have had many discussions about war and peace and military operations, and we find that pacifists are mostly vegetarians.

Mr. H. Hynd: Hitler was a vegetarian.

Mr. McKay: There are exceptions to every rule.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The argument of the hon. Member seems to be based on the assumption that all non-pacifists are cruel persons. Is that his argument?

Mr. McKay: No, my argument is that pacifists are, as a rule, fine specimens of humanity. They may on occasions have wrong ideas, like many other people, but generally speaking I think that a pacifist is a good man. We are pushing this Bill forward on account of humanity, and I am asking where humanity will lead us. In what direction will it govern us in relation to animals? I believe that in India the cow is sacred, but we certainly do not think that any of our cows are sacred under this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but will the hon. Member address himself to the Third Reading of the Bill? He


is going very wide in his generalisations. After all the scope of a Third Reading debate is very limited.

Mr. McKay: It is difficult to outline one's feelings against the Bill in general without some generalising. This Bill seems to me to embody the idea that we are willing to kill but are rather afraid to strike. We are very keen on killing animals. It is an embodiment of the significant fact that we in this country believe in killing animals.
Most of us like horses and most of us are fed by the cow. But when the horse and cow have done their work, what are we to do with them from the point of view of humanity? Are they to be sent to the knacker's yard from the point of view of humanity? When a man has done his work for humanity he can be pensioned off. Is there no form of thought within this country and within this House to emphasise that, just as a man who has done his work should be pensioned off, so should a horse and cow? How would we pension off a horse or a cow? By taking them to the knacker's yard. I think the whole idea is wrong. I think the Bill is wrong.
We are told it is against the law of God and nature to give a man anything to help him on his way despite the agony from which he may be suffering. Yet when we come to the animal which has done a tremendous amount of good work we take the opposite view. We say, "Save the man, keep him; let him live and suffer to the last second." But with the animal we have a different outlook. We want to kill the animal straight away. I think this Bill is wrong from that point of view. It does not indicate at all that we have any real regard for the animal.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member says this Bill is wrong. Could he visualise what conditions would be like without it? Would they be any better?

Mr. McKay: I do not think that Mr. Speaker would allow me to go into that particular question. It would take me all over the world and into all kinds of problems and difficulties.
This Bill takes up an absolutely different position, an entirely opposite position from our treatment of man. We are pushing on with this Bill because we want to be more humane and kindly to

the animals. I say that we are not being kindly to the animal; we are stepping up and emphasising and indicating a way to get the animal killed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Member suggest that it is kinder to preserve a decrepit dying animal and to prolong its life? Which is the more cruel—to end its life or to prolong it?

Mr. McKay: It depends on the animal itself. If there is a belief that a man would be better off if he were given some form of medicine to help him out of this world because he was suffering and it was impossible to cure him, that medicine is not given. The question is whether the animal is in a condition to enjoy life. There is no condition laid down in the Bill that only animals which are suffering and can no longer enjoy life shall be slaughtered. The Bill merely provides the ways and means of killing animals.
I would say that the foundation of this Bill ought to be the first fundamental law of nature. That is the law that everyone has the right to live. Has the animal no right to live?

Mr. Speaker: This argument is becoming too involved. I cannot follow it. After all, this Bill deals with provisions for the slaughter of animals and not the first law of nature or anything else. The Title of the Bill is:
 To Extend the Provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933….
That is the law, and therefore it is no good saying that the slaughter of animals is wrong.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. If one is discussing a Bill providing for the methods of the slaughter of animals, is it out of order to question whether these animals should be slaughtered at all? If the animals are not slaughtered at all, then this Bill becomes unnecessary. I am not, of course, saying that animals should not be slaughtered; but if one does say so— and that is what I understand is the vegetarian argument being put by my hon. Friend—it seems to me a valid reason for not passing this Bill. Surely that is relevant?

Mr. Speaker: I think that one could oppose the Bill by a different method.


That is a far too involved method in which to oppose the Bill. It is far too theoretical.

Mr. McKay: I should have thought that when a general principle was before the House, so long as one was definitely speaking against the Bill, it would not matter to what extent one went. I do not want to press that matter. I under stand the position. We want to get on with business. At the same time, I am against the Bill—

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: As I understand it, the provisions of this Bill are designed to make the slaughter of animals less cruel. Surely my hon. Friend, as a humanitarian, ought for that reason to welcome the Bill so far as it goes. It does not go as far as he wants it to go, because he would like a Bill to prevent all slaughter of all animals, but surely a little thing is better than nothing.

Mr. McKay: I agree. If one wants to abolish a practice and one cannot do it, one must make the conditions as nice as possible. This Bill is an attempt to do a dirty job as nicely as possible. At the same time, I suggest that the question is whether it is right to do the job at all. In India they have a different attitude towards the cow. It is a sacred animal.
I was amazed to find from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee that the Committee did not go into the subject further. It is all very well to say that an animal shall be fed and watered; but surely it is essential to make sure that there are ways and means of ensuring that the water shall be available. I have not seen anything in the Bill or in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee to ensure that water will be available. Any number of us have knowledge of how inspectors can be bamboozled. How is an inspector who goes into a knacker's yard to know whether an animal has been watered or fed? There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that.
That is one of the weaknesses of the Bill. Though one may be against animals being killed, nevertheless if the law allows it, and people are determined to do it, one wants them to be killed as humanely as possible. It would not have been difficult to state in the Bill that steps

should be taken to ensure that an animal should have water. There may be no water pipes in the knacker's yard. But, in spite of the fact that water is not laid on, the Bill says that the animal must be watered. If water is not laid on, it must be carried to the yard. How is an inspector to say whether animals have been watered when there is no water on the spot?
If an inspector goes to a knacker's yard or a slaughter house to see that this Bill is being implemented, he is supposed to ensure that the animal has had water. The criticism which I level against the Bill is that it gives no guarantee that animals will be watered. There has been talk about living in a scientific age. We believe that we are in advance of other countries in that respect.
Here is a simple elementary position. We want more security to ensure that, before animals are slaughtered they shall be fed and have a drink, and it should be possible to make provisions for that. In this Bill there is no security for the animals in this respect, and this is the great weakness of the Bill. In fact, the Bill is so weak in this matter of ensuring that animals shall be watered and fed that I think the House would be consistent and logical in throwing it out altogether.
It should be possible, in formulating a Bill of this kind, to include provisions which would give security that, when these animals are sent to the knacker's yard, they get both water and food. Surely, just as a criminal who is going to be hanged is given a good breakfast before his execution, we ought similarly to make sure that a poor animal should have a good meal and a good drink before it is slaughtered? There is no security whatever that that will be done. The inspector has nothing behind him in the way of authority if he happens to go to one of these places and tries to prove that the animals have had neither food nor water.
I know that the situation regarding water supplies is very difficult, but I still think that where there are no taps, or even where there is no water supply, some provision should be made in this Bill that a trough of sufficient size should be available from which the animals might drink as they need, and also that that trough should be kept in an efficient state all the time.

Mr. Speaker: Really, the hon. Member is going on interminably, I do not believe that he has yet touched on the Bill. Will he please deal with the Third Reading of the Bill and confine his remarks to what is in the Bill?

Mr. McKay: I was talking on the question of guaranteeing that the animals have Water and food, and this Bill is particularly framed in order to secure that they should. I am trying to point out that the Bill is not likely to achieve its object. It is not sufficiently scientifically framed to achieve the object it is trying to attain. In so far as that is the case, it is surely one of the weaknesses of the Bill, and I am suggesting that the whole matter should be put in proper order, so that there would be some guarantee in order to help the inspector. There is at present no security either for the inspector or for the animals concerned. There is simply a slack indication that they should have water and food at certain times but any inspector would be in a difficulty in going to these places—

Mr. Speaker: I have heard that argument time and time again. The hon. Member must know that there is a rule against repetition, and he must remember that he cannot go on saying more or less the same thing; otherwise, I shall have to stop him.

Mr. McKay: I do not want to take up more time, because I think I have elaborated my point sufficiently. I think the Bill is wrong in principle and wrong in method, and I hope it will not be passed.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) on having secured the passage of his Bill through the House to the Third Reading stage. I was rather surprised to find his name on the Bill because, when I have listened to him in economic and political debates. I often wondered whether he had a heart at all, especially when some of us were very concerned about the conditions of our people, and particularly children, and when he was not particularly enthusiastic. It is one of the characteristics of the British race, I suppose, that we all look after our animals, and the hon. Member obviously has a good heart in bringing forward a Bill like this and

conducting it through its various stages in this House.
In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) has said, I think this Bill is a good one, in that it is an effort to achieve the humane killing of animals. I am interested in it because of some experiences I had recently. When I visited another country, I noticed that in one part of that country the animals, particularly horses and oxen, were very skinny, thin and haggard, and I discovered, after a few inquiries, that nobody bothered very much about the feeding and watering of the animals so long as they could pull the ploughs and carts.
In another part of the same country, I found that the animals there were well fed and cared for, and I discovered that that was largely an expression of the characteristics of the people in that portion of the country I visited. It has always seemed to me that, whatever may be our political and economic disagreements, when it comes to dealing with animals, most Britishers want to see animals treated as fairly and as humanely as possible. I am glad, therefore, that slaughter houses are to be improved.
There is one point of criticism that I want to make. As a member of a local authority for many years who has had the duty of inspecting these places, I know that they have in many cases been disgraceful, to put it mildly, and if this Bill results in better conditions in such slaughter houses, then the conscience of right-minded people will be solved to some extent.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that we should not kill animals, and I think he would look very poorly if we had to do for food without the killing of animals. I think that the killing of animals should be carried out as cleanly and humanely and with as little suffering to the animals as possible. I shall never forget going into a factory in which pigs were being slaughtered, and in which the noise created and the horrors that one saw made one feel that one would never again eat any bacon. Today, however, the killing of pigs is carried out much more carefully and with much less cruelty.
The success of this Bill will depend upon whether inspectors see that its provisions are properly carried out, and my


experience is that there are already far too few inspectors. Sometimes they are people who have other jobs to do, but in any case there are not enough of them, and it will not be possible to have continuous inspection of these places where animals are killed. I know that that is the job of the local authorities, and it might have been helpful if there had been some instruction in the Bill telling the local authorities to pay a great deal more attention to the inspection of these places, in making sure that the intentions of this Bill are properly carried out without any unnecessary cruelty to the animals that have to be slaughtered.
Apart from that criticism, I think this Bill is one which the House ought to pass. The people in this country who are concerned with treating animals as humanely as possible, and there are very large numbers of them, will welcome the Bill, and if we can build up in the local authorities an effective inspection system it will then be possible to ensure that the intentions of the Bill are fully carried out.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and all the others concerned with the Bill for their work upon it, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mrs. Ganley) who, I know, for many years has taken a very active part in trying to get this problem dealt with. She must feel some sense of satisfaction that now, after several years' efforts on the committee of inquiry and before, and more recently in helping to get this Bill through, at last she sees the House about to agree to the Third Reading of a Bill which will modernise and improve slaughter houses and do away with some of the unnecessary cruelty with which animals have been afflicted in the past.

12.31 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) for introducing this Bill and for dealing with it so competently during the Committee stage, and also in the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mrs. Ganley) for her continued work in this field.
I should think that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South is feeling

somewhat disappointed that this Bill, which purports to implement certain recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Export and Slaughter of Horses, is so limited in its scope. There are many good reasons why it has to be limited in its scope, and in saying that it is limited I am not complaining against the hon. Member for Burton; but I would say that in passing this Bill today, as, I am certain, we are going to do we can regard it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South said in her speech, only as a slight alleviation of the problem. It is not by any means the end of the road. It is only a milestone on the road.
This slaughtering of animals is a horrible business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) said. Where I disagree with him is in this. Without discussing the merits or demerits of vegetarianism, or whether or not we are entitled to slaughter animals, it is, I am sure, the duty of Parliament in the present circumstances to do what it can to improve matters. I disagree with my hon. Friend about what is the duty of Parliament in the circumstances.
We are all horse eaters. Except my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend and Hitler and other vegetarians, we are all horse eaters. We may not sit down to a horse steak, but I have no doubt that we all eat it in the form of sausages, meat pies, and other things into which horse flesh is introduced. Parliament has to face the fact that horses are slaughtered for food, and surely it is our business—

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Is my hon. Friend seriously saying to the House that horse meat is used in sausages? If so, would he kindly give to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food, who is here, full particulars of this in the very near future? As I understand it, it is not authorised, and I should like to have some information about this.

Mr. Hynd: My hon. Friend is in the legal profession, and he rather frightens me by issuing this challenge. Fortunately for me, speech is privileged in this House, and I am not accountable in the courts to my hon. Friend for that statement. However, I do not want to abuse the privilege we have of speech in this House, so I shall modify what I said to the extent of saying that when I see some of


those meat pies and sausages and other mixtures I have a very strong suspicion— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—that I may be eating horse, when, otherwise, I should perhaps, not be so keen about it.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is a Member of the Kitchen Committee. I seriously ask him whether he is intending to reflect on the quality of the meat pies sold in the House of Commons.

Mr. Hynd: If I have seemed to cast any reflection on the Kitchen Committee, I hasten to withdraw any such implication. I am quite sure that the Members of the Kitchen Committee do not manufacture the pies, and perhaps even Members of the Kitchen Committee do not know what is in some of those pies.
However, to come to the contents of the Bill, this is, as I say, a horrible business, and it is the duty of Parliament to make it as humane as possible. That is not saying very much. Animals knew when they are at a slaughter house. I have been told by people who ought to know that as soon as the animals come within quite a long distance from a slaughter house, they can smell the blood and that they show certain symptoms of knowing exactly where they are; and they must be in a pretty acute state of terror. There was a party of Members of Parliament taken some time ago by a certain business in London to see some of their establishments. They took us to a housing estate, and they took us to a departmental store, then they took us to a dairy and a bakery, then they took us to a slaughter house—and then they offered us lunch. I must say that it was as much as I could do to eat my lunch.
There is no doubt at all that this is a horrible business, and that it is our job to try to do something about. That is the intention of this Bill, and that is why my name appears as one of the sponsors of the Bill. It is not put forward as the perfect solution to the problem. It is put forward mainly as a small attempt to do something that is badly needed to be done towards implementing what was recommended—and this was only one of the recommendations—by the Departmental Committee as long ago as March, 1950. I think we ought to adopt some of the other recommendatons of that Committee as soon as we can, and that the sooner we

do it the better for our reputation in this House and the better for the animals.
With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said about horses abroad, it is a point, I think, in favour of this Bill that, by making the conditions as good as we can in this country, we do better than sending horses abroad to be slaughtered. This horrible trade goes on. We have not yet been able to deal with it as the Departmental Committee recommended. At any rate, I think that as animal lovers it is better that we should slaughter animals in the conditions that exist in this country, and that will be improved by the Bill, than that we should send them abroad to be dealt with in what are, as I understand it, much more cruel conditions.

Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend permit me? Is that observation warranted, in view of the appendices to the Report? The indication of those appendices is that conditions over here are a good deal worse in many respects than on the Continent. That is the shocking aspect of the matter.

Mr. Hynd: I cannot accept that. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I attempted to discuss too far the contents of the Report of the Departmental Committee. I will only say that this Report does not justify the remark that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just made. Indeed, it makes certain recommendations regarding the control of the export of horses, and that, I think, proves what I say.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not a fact that the export of live horses for slaughter from this country has now been entirely stopped, as the figures given by the Ministry of Agriculture recently testify?

Mr. Hynd: I do not want to go too far into the argument about the slaughter of horses. I think that that would be quite out of order. I should like to confine my few remarks to the contents of the Bill.
There is an admitted weakness in this Bill, and that is in regard to feeding. The Bill as it now stands is very different from when it first saw the light of day. The hon. Member for Burton must have been quite astonished, I think, at finding all the snags that have arisen during the discussion of the Bill. Attempts have been


made to deal with those various snags, and only very recently we adopted a substantial Amendment about them. I think that this is as far as the House could reasonably go, but if further Amendments. even now, were found to be desirable they could be inserted. There are ways and means of making Amendments even after this stage. However, so far as concerns the people who are sponsoring the Bill, what they were able to do for the proper feeding and watering of the animals, has been done.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity of explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend just why it is that feeding in the period immediately prior to slaughter is not provided for. In fact, the provisions exempt feeding for a certain period. The reason is that we are given to understand by the experts that a carcass is spoiled if feeding takes place too near the period of slaughter. That, as we were advised in Committee, is the reason for this exemption of feeding, and it is not an attempt to starve the animal which caused the provision in the Bill to be put in which provides for a period during which feeding is not desirable.
I strongly recommend the Bill to the House. It by no means goes so far as we should like it to go, but it is a small step forward, and I hope that the Bill will receive a unanimous Third Reading.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: In rising to support the provisions of this modest Bill, I do so partly because of the alleviation it gives with regard to unnecessary suffering and partly because the constituency of West Ham, which I have the honour to represent, is the place where, in fact, there is more horse slaughtering done than in any other place in the country.
The whole process of horse slaughtering in the London area seems to be concentrated in West Ham where thousands of horses are slaughtered each year. I am afraid that I cannot enter into the details of that particular matter, as it has been considered by the courts and I was involved professionally in those proceedings. It may well be that I should find myself in some difficulty if I were to go into it in any detail. It is quite clear that anything this House can do

to eliminate unnecessary cruelty in connection with this necessary process of slaughtering should be done by the House.
I should like to deal with one or two of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) about the provisions of the Bill. He feels that the obligations which are placed upon the occupier of these premises that we are concerned with should be made more specific. I can assure him that the Bill goes far enough to place fairly and squarely upon the occupier the responsibility, for instance, of supplying a sufficient quantity of wholesome water. It is not necessary that the Bill should state how that water should be provided. If the occupier fails to provide the necessary amount of water, then he commits an offence, and if he is charged it will be for him to prove that he did provide the necessary water and inform the court that would have to deal with the matter what provisions he had in fact available.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Bill need not go further than it does with regard to the provision of water supplies, and I do not think that it would be helpful if any legislation upon this matter were to set out the quantity of water to be supplied or the manner in which it was to be supplied. It is sufficient, I think, that the Bill should clearly state that the occupier shall have the duty of providing every animal with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water.

Mr. Paget: Is not that confusing the matter a little? My hon. Friend is casting on the prosecution the negative burden of having to prove that the water has not been supplied. If the horse slaughterer, or knacker, or whoever it is, simply keeps his mouth shut, it is very difficult to see how an offence under this Bill can ever be proved.

Mr. Jones: I should have thought that where there are facilities, as there are in law, to enable sudden inspection of these premises to be carried out, there would not be a great deal of difficulty. It seems to me that if we were to seek in this Bill to specify methods for the provision of running water, we should get ourselves into considerable difficulty. As it is, the Bill places upon the occupier the duty


of causing every animal to be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water. The difficulty of proof in these matters is, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, substantial. Those of us who are accustomed to appearing in the criminal courts know that the prosecution in cases of this kind do encounter difficulty, but I cannot see how, by altering the wording of the Bill, more adequate provision could be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walls-end was also a little anxious about the problem of inspection. As has been pointed out, these provisions of the law are enforced and carried out by the local authorities. Their effectiveness varies with the effectiveness of the local authority concerned. Some are very energetic about this matter, and, if I may say so, the local authority in West Ham, in view of its special responsibility as being the area where so much horse slaughtering is carried out, has paid very great attention indeed, with its limited resources of personnel, to the enforcement of existing legal provisions.
Nevertheless, it is a very real difficulty, and one hopes that the local authorities will, after the publicity that has been given to this problem, be more alive to the duties which rest upon them in regard to the enforcement of these humane provisions. I understand that the representatives of the medical officers of health and local sanitary inspectors, have a right of immediate entry without notice upon these premises, and so my hon. Friend's anxiety that there will be too many difficulties in the way of a sudden check seem to have been rather exaggerated in his mind.

Mr. McKay: Can my hon. Friend explain the position when an inspector enters upon premises and sees no indication of a water supply. If he makes inquiries and the man in charge says that there is a water supply, how can the inspector obtain any proof?

Mr. Paget: How would my hon. Friend deal with that if the man in charge says, "I will not answer."

Mr. Jones: These points of detail with regard to specific cases are not easy to deal with. The facts in each case vary considerably. I should have thought that in the hypothetical case to which my hon.

and learned Friend has referred, if, in fact, an inspector came on a place where there was no facility at all for water to be supplied and there did not appear to be any evidence that water had in fact been supplied, it would be sufficient if the inspector said so in the witness box to establish a prima facie case that the animals in the lairage had not been provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water. It would then be upon the accused occupier to satisfy the court that he had in fact supplied the animals with water. One is always in these matters where the enforcement of legal proceedings is concerned in some difficulty in dealing with hypothetical cases.

Mr. Wallace: I am in some difficulty about this, and perhaps my hon. Friend will help me. How can the presence of water in the lairage show that the animal has had water?

Mr. Jones: I quite agree that that in itself does not show that the animal has had water. The kind of argument we are now having illustrates admirably the trouble one gets into in dealing with hypothetical cases. The hypothetical case mentioned by my hon. Friend was one in which there was no provision available in the lairage at all for the supply of water. If there was provision for running water in the lairage, clearly the occupier would be in very much less of a difficulty than in the hypothetical case just referred to.

Mr. Paget: Surely whenever we pass a Bill in this House we have to consider the hypothetical cases that may arise under it, and at the stage when everything that may happen in consequence of the Bill is hypothetical we have to apply our minds to those matters, so that we may discover the wrong which it is sought to correct.

Mr. Jones: I cannot conceive of any other means by which the Bill could place the burden more clearly upon the occupier. If my hon. and learned Friend is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps he will enlighten the House as to what he has in mind.

Mr. Paget: Could my hon. Friend point out to me whether the Bill lays the burden on the occupier? It seems to me that the ordinary rule applies here.


and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not now in Committee.

Mr. Jones: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I agree. I was merely seeking to reply to this rather detailed discussion on the words of the Clause, in order to allay the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend about the inadequacy of the provisions of this Clause to deal with the mischief with which the Bill is concerned. I think I have said sufficient to indicate my view that the provisions of Clause 1 go a good deal of the way towards making it incumbent upon the occupier to supply the animals in the lairage with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water. The problem of enforcing that is, as I have admitted, not without difficulty, but that is a common phenomenon with regard to many aspects of the criminal law, and I do not see how the Committee could have dealt much more successfully with the problem than in the manner they have done here.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House on this Bill. I give the Bill my cordial support, because it deals with a problem which is of particular interest to my constituency where, for good or for evil, this massive quantity of slaughtering of horses takes place every year.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: First, I wish to join in with other hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) who fathered the Bill, and who, probably like many other fathers on the eve of such an occasion, is rather timorous about whether or not the child will get a safe delivery. I do not think that he need worry very much about the mood of the House in that respect, because I think the Bill is generally acceptable to all hon. Members on this side of the House.
The Bill is kind in its object, and in that respect it is a good Bill. It is small in size, and there has been some doubt expressed as to whether or not in its method it is entirely effective. Considering the intention of the Bill and taking into account the present circumstances

that have led up to the Bill, I think that the House would be very foolish indeed to refuse it a Third Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. MacKay) expressed himself as wholly opposed to the Bill; he thought that it was entirely wrong. From what I could gather from his speech, the only Bill that he would be wholly in favour of would be one that would lead to a wholesale extension of the practice of vegetarianism. This Bill is quite unrelated to that, and I imagine that no Bill could be brought forward on a Friday to achieve that end. My hon. Friend should consider the present circumstances. If he had read—and I doubt very much whether he has read—the Rosebery Report on the Export and Slaughter of Horses, and realised that certain of the recommendations they have made would not be carried out if this Bill were not passed, he would have changed his mind about calling the Bill "entirely wrong."
This Bill is an extension, in a small way, of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933. That Act was directed entirely at the method of killing, and provided that the slaughter should be instantaneous by means of a newly-designed weapon. This Bill, on the other hand, concentrates not on the method of killing but on the incidental agonies which the animal must suffer. Going to the place of slaughter, the feeling of death, the smell of blood and the sight of slaughter, all have a proved effect on the animals about to be slaughtered. We deal also with the creature discomforts of hunger, thirst and waiting.
The Bill deals with only some of these, and if there is any criticism I have it is that the Bill does not go far enough. The 1933 Act did not say a word about the lairage, and this Bill deals entirely with that, and with the creature comforts. I must confess that on reading the Report of the Committee stage and seeing the Bill as it now is, I think that the Bill is much more acceptable than it was when introduced on Second Reading. I think we are all agreed about that, although it is still by no means perfect.
Clause 1, in its new layout, entirely separates the questions of water and food. Despite the interruption of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Northampton (Mr. Paget), I think it is clear that the Bill lays upon the occupier of the lairage the obligation to provide the animal with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water. I cannot see any doubt about that. The question of whether he will carry that out is a different matter altogether. There may be some criticisms of the provisions empowering the inspectors, or whoever is responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Bill, to see that that is done, but the actual law is clear. The occupier must provide and give these animals waiting for slaughter a sufficient quantity of wholesome water.

Mr. Paget: I entirely agreed with that proposition. I was thinking of the later Clauses, where failure to do so is made an offence, and I was visualising the difficulties which may arise in the courts where the burden of proof is not transferred. I should have thought that this Bill would have been a great deal easier to enforce—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman hopes to catch my eye in a short time. He must not make his speech now.

Mr. Ross: The best we can do is to make the law tight enough. As a complement to the effectiveness of the Bill's powers of inspection, a number of inspectors will be necessary to carry out the will of Parliament.

Mr. McAllister: Would not my hon. Friend agree that what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) said is substanially true? We must hope that when the Bill goes to another place something will be done to strengthen it by putting the onus of proof where it ought to be.

Mr. Ross: I quite agree, but if my hon. Friend will be patient he may hear some criticisms from me on that point.
We cannot quarrel with the object of the Bill. The widening of its scope by the introduction of the new Subsection in regard to knackers' yards to Clause 1 is good. It is a pity that we leave the penalties what they were in 1933. For the first offence the fine is "not exceeding £10," and for the second offence "not exceeding £20." It is only for a third offence that there is possibility of

imprisonment for not exceeding three months, with the alternative of a fine of £20.
Remembering the change in the value of the £and in the public attitude towards this kind of cruelty, as evidenced not only by the Bill but by other Bills of this character this session, we could easily have increased the fines or put in a provision to deny licences. A person who ignores this law for the provision of food and water to animals before slaughter and considers only what he is going to make out of them should not be granted a licence after he has offended three times.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On Third Reading hon. Members cannot suggest improvements but can only talk about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I am talking about the fines in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that they should be different.

Mr. Ross: I was saying that they are not enough. Surely in doing that I am talking about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman thinks they should be something different.

Mr. Ross: The change we made in Clause 1 is not entirely satisfactory because of the possibility of animals being left without food and water. The occupier of a lairage has only to claim that he intends to slaughter the animals within the next 12 hours to be able to escape penalty.
The spirit of the Bill is good, but I want to deal with two other defects. One supporter of the Bill, a Scottish Member, was mainly responsible for the Act of 1933. I regret that the Act did not extend to Scotland. I do not know why Scotland should be left out of these beneficial Bills. The departmental committee's report covered Scotland. One of the most damaging statements, referring to a visit to a Scottish slaughterhouse, is contained in an appendix to the Rosebery Report. We read there:
At the time of my visit slaughtering was in progress. I saw two horses brought into the slaughter room and shot side by side.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is quoting a Scottish slaughterhouse.

Mr. Ross: I am quoting from the Rosebery Report.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gathered that it was a Scottish slaughterhouse. Of course, Scotland is not included in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: It says in Clause 5 (2):
This Act shall not extend to Scotland.
Does that mean I am not entitled to mention that the Bill does not extend to Scotland?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was putting forward the case why the Bill should extend to Scotland, but that cannot be done on Third Reading.

Mr. Ross: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I still think that Clause 5 (2) is a mistake. I think I am entitled to say that Clause 5 (2) detracts from the goodness and virtue of the Bill and that it would have been very much better without the subsection which denies Scotland its benefits.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Might not the omission be explained by the instinctive kindness of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the Report from which I attempted to quote, and he will find that his remark is not entirely true. Conditions prevailing in some Scottish places are just as bad as in England.

Mr. McAllister: On a point of order. I should be most grateful for guidance on the Ruling that you have given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If my hon. Friend had been opposing the Third Reading, would he have been in order in doing so on the ground that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, and in giving reasons why it should apply?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On the Third Reading one can deal only with what is in the Bill. One can draw attention to the fact that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, but to do so at great length is out of order.

Mr. McAllister: I take it as within the rights of hon. Members to oppose the granting of the Third Reading of a Bill. If the ground of opposition were

that the Bill did not apply to Scotland, would not one be entitled to put the next point and to give reasons why it should have applied to Scotland?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only quote from the procedure laid down in Erskine May:
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted … being limited to the matters contained in the bill.

Mr. Ross: It is rather limiting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Bill states that the Act shall not extend to Scotland. Surely it would be relevant to discuss whether or not it should extend to Scotland. I find some difficulty in answering the points put to me by Scottish hon. Members about my attitude to the Bill. I am not allowed to quote from the relevant Report dealing with Scottish matters upon which the whole Bill is based.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the point of order. Is not the difference between Second Reading and Third Reading that on Third Reading one may not deal with topics which are not in the Bill with a view to expressing a desire that they should be incorporated in the Bill, which would manifestly be an impossibility having regard to the fact that the Bill had reached its Third Reading? Was not your Ruling perfectly correct?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has put the position in a better form of words than I did. I agree with him.

Mr. Ross: There is only one other matter about which I wish to speak. The recommendation on which part of the Bill is based is on page 12 of the summary of recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee. Paragraph (i)which says:
That stricter supervision should be exercised by licensing authorities to see that horses which are detained for more than 24 hours before slaughter are properly fed.
But the Bill does not mention licensing authorities.
I fear that what was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mrs. Ganley), is justified. We are passing a Bill which is good, although it could be better with some other things


in it, but whether or not the good which is in the Bill will be translated into practice depends entirely on the authorities and people whose business it is to see that the Bill is carried out. The defect of the 1933 Act may well be the defect of the Bill when it becomes an Act. As far as administration is concerned, we shall not have the people whose job it is to see that it is carried out. The local authorities are not willing to accept the responsibility, and so we are thrown back upon the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its inspectors.
That is the big weakness of the Bill, and it can only be overcome if the public are aware of the cruelty which is taking place and co-operate with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Some slaughter houses are in isolated areas, but others are in populated areas. If there is proper co-operation between the public and the inspectors, the abuses can be tracked down and the law applied. However, the great weakness of the Bill is that there is nothing in it to say, "It is your job to see that the Bill is carried out."
The Bill is good and is kindly in effect, but let us be conscious of its defects and realise that we are not making great and sweeping moral changes because of the unwillingness of people to accept the responsibility for carrying out the generally accepted will of the people that cruelty to animals before slaughter shall be reduced to the minimum.

1.15 p.m.

Dr. King: I have been asked by the members of the R.S.P.C.A. in my own town to support the Bill. I do so gladly, and I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who has had the proud task of promoting the Bill.
It is worth noting that in a world where in China people are being publicly executed because they are Communists or are not Communists, where in Hungary men are being imprisoned and tortured because they are not Communists, and where in the United States men and women are being harried out of their jobs and victimised because they are Communists or have been Communists or have spoken to Communists, the House of Commons should be adding another

link in the chain which protects animals, who can do nothing for themselves. This is one of a series of Measures brought to the notice of the House during the last 50 years on behalf of the dumb animals of this country. I welcome it sincerely and hope that it will be given a unanimous Third Reading.

1.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): I do not intend to emulate the philosophic, hypothetical and legalistic arguments which have held the House in the past few hours. I wish simply to say that I am among those who congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) upon introducing the Bill and seeing it safely through the House.
In case a mistaken impression has been created, I emphasise that the Bill will affect slaughter houses generally and is not confined to the slaughter of horses. The Ministry of Food is therefore very much affected by the Bill as the Ministry at present is largely responsible for the slaughter of animals for human consumption. I say at once that we are most anxious to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals which have been purchased by the Ministry for slaughter. It is on that account that we have endeavoured to display a benevolent neutrality and have given all the assistance we could to the hon. Member to help him to obtain his objective.
Meanwhile, we have always insisted that the slaughtering contractors and their employees should carry out fully the provisions of the principal Act, the Slaughter of Animals Act. I assure the House that when the Bill becomes effective—and we have encouraged the hon. Member to make it effective earlier than he originally hoped would be possible—we shall insist upon the provisions of the new Act being similarly effective in the slaughter houses for which we are responsible.
As to the matter of inspectors, we have supervisory officers whose responsibility it is regularly and frequently to visit the slaughterhouses to satisfy themselves that the Ministry's instructions about the welfare of animals are properly implemented.

Mr. Ross: Does not that apply only where horses are being slaughtered for human consumption?

Mr. Willey: I am sorry that the House should still be confused. I am dealing at the moment only with the slaughter houses for which the Ministry are responsible, and the Ministry are in no way responsible for the slaughter of horses. Apart from our own supervision through these inspectors, we have given every facility to the inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to visit the slaughter houses and satisfy themselves that the animals are properly cared for. The R.S.P.C.A. inspectors are indeed constant visitors to the slaughter houses.
Earlier this year we agreed with the R.S.P.C.A. a new procedure whereby, if our local officers cannot find a remedy for any complaint made by the Society, their inspectors have access to the senior administrative officer of the Department in the area. If, notwithstanding that access, the Society feels that all steps have not been taken to remedy the complaints which they have brought to our notice. their headquarters have the right to raise the matter with the Ministry headquarters.
This procedure is some evidence of our anxiety to do all we can to avoid any unnecessary suffering, and also to give all the access we feel we ought to give to the inspectors of an independent authority—the R.S.P.C.A.—so that they, in turn, can satisfy themselves that every endeavour is being made, in conditions which are sometimes far from satisfactory, to do what can be done to avoid unnecessary suffering.
The point has been made during the debate that in many places the conditions are not satisfactory. Because of that we feel the greater is our responsibility to take every step we can to ensure that, within the limitations of those conditions, all avoidable suffering should be avoided. Moreover, may I add, that as far as I can see, the people concerned with the slaughtering of animals in this country are carrying out their job as humanely as they can. Therefore, I take this opportunity to assure the House, in view of the considerable interest shown this morning, that not only are we endeavouring to do all we can to ensure that the provisions of the principal Act are fully carried out, but also that we will readily accept the new responsibilities which this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will lay upon us.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: If, by the leave of the House, I might say a few words, I should like first to thank everybody who has helped to get this Bill to its present stage, and who have shown by their thoughtful speeches what a deep interest they take in this subject. One hon. Member said that I must have learned a good deal during the stages of this Bill. That is true. One of the things I learned most clearly was what a great fund of good will exists on both sides of this House when any question of cruelty to animals comes up.
I want in particular to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who has done everything he could to facilitate this Bill. Not merely that, but by his assistance, with the assistance of his Department, and of the people with whom he put me in touch, the hon. Gentleman has unquestionably enabled the Bill to be improved so that it should be a really effective weapon against the practices which we all deplore.
In that connection I do not think that pains and penalties would help us very much. The effective weapon is public opinion working through voluntary associations—the R.S.P.C.A. is a notable example—and also by the individual expression and formation of public opinion which I find in my constituency and which I know other hon. Members find in theirs. When the question of proof was mentioned, I recollected the large amount of correspondence from my constituents in which I found that all sorts of people keep a keen eye on what is going on in slaughterhouses. It is those people, who have combined with the officials and the Ministry of Food, who are giving full support to any steps taken to prevent cruelty. In that way we shall do far more even than if the penalties were increased.
With regard to the limitations of the Bill, hon. Members will realise that I fully sympathise with them on its defects and omissions. Had I drafted a Bill which included all I felt about cruelty to animals, it would have been a very large Bill and there would have been little chance of getting it through the House, because a private Member, even with the generous assistance of the Department concerned, cannot hope to get through a Bill which affects many


interests and which would lead to a long discussion. If a private Member wishes to be successful, he has to bring forward a short Bill dealing with almost a single point which will gain the general assent of the House.
With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it may receive a Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.27 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
We have had in the discussion which has just been concluded references of a critical nature to the fact that Scotland was not included in the purview of that Bill. In this case, however, it is Scotland exclusively whose fate and gas undertakings we are to consider. It is usual in Private Members' Bills to introduce something of a non-controversial nature, and then the House settles down to an amiable discussion such as we have had this morning. In other words, the lion lies down with the lamb and a useful Measure comes out as the product.
My own Bill is in rather a different category. It is necessarily controversial, but I assure the House that this is no mere legislative frolic. I have brought this Bill forward for two important reasons: first, because I believe it to be right for any Member of Parliament to use such opportunities as are presented to him to give effect to that dislike of unnecessary nationalisation which we have never hidden on this side of the House; secondly, to do what is possible to remove that distaste which is felt in Scotland towards distant Whitehall control and which has boiled up in recent years into an acute political and national issue.
We, on this side of the House, have always stated frankly and continually during the discussions on the nationalisation Measures which have gone through since the war that we did not believe the proposals of the Government to be

the best in the interests of the nation, in the direction of trying to solve problems which had become, let us admit it, more or less acute. In the case of gas, the nationalisation Bill was preceded by a Report known as the Haworth Report, the discussions in Parliament were steamrollered through during 1948, and on 1st May, 1949, 1,047 gas undertakings, of which 300 were municipally owned, passed under state control and ownership.
What were the benefits that were claimed would flow from this action at the time it was taken? First and foremost, it was put forward that we should have a more efficient industry and a cheaper product. In the pamphlet "Let us Face the Future." there were written these words:
Amalgamations under public ownership will modernise production methods and lower charges"—
Note, "lower charges"—
prevent competitive waste … other industries will benefit.
Those were bold words, unwise words, and, as it turned out, untrue words, because one of the very earliest actions taken by the Gas Council was to raise gas prices over-all throughout the country. It was claimed at that time, to be fair, that this rise was necessitated by the increased price for coal which they were having to pay, but it is noteworthy that in the Scottish accounts, at least, the extra income produced by these raised charges more than covered the extra price which had to be paid for the coal.
Let us now turn our eyes on whether the industry has become more efficient— the second of the main claims which was made in regard to nationalisation. If we look at the first Report by the Minister of Fuel and Power for the period ending March, 1950, and which made its blushing debut only in February, 1951—in unhappy contrast with the fact that the accounts of statutory gas undertakings were charged with making their appearance three months after the end of their financial year—we find just how pathetically negligible were the results which have been obtained. These are quotations from that Report:
No [capital investment] programmes had been submitted by the Area Boards for formal approval by the Minister.
No representations were made by the Gas Consultative Councils to the Minister.


General notifications for gas examiners are being revised.
The Gas Council had not been able to submit to the Minister the co-ordinated programme for training and education.
Again.
In January, 1950, stockholders' representatives referred three classes of securities for determination of values. The hearing had not taken place at 31st March, 1950.
Nor do we today know whether any progress has been made in any of these matters, for under nationalisation the Minister coyly goes into purdah and any knock at the door of his seraglio to try to get an answer meets with no response at all. If this category of doing nothing which I have read out is efficiency, it is clothed in a very curious garb.
What next? In the pamphlet "Labour Believes in Britain," in a temporary outburst of sympathy for the consumer—no doubt with an eye on getting his vote— it was written:
The voice of the consumer must ring out with strength and emphasis.
And so, to allow this voice to "ring out with strength and emphasis," there were set up gas consultative councils. They were set up, be it noted, by the Minister. They have no executive powers; they can at any moment be withdrawn by the Minister, and in the Scottish Report this particular gas consultative council states that
no complaint of a major character were received and it has been possible to deal administratively with those which were received.
Has such deep contentment settled upon the 1,196,000 consumers of gas in Scotland? Is it not curious that in that period no representations whatever were made in the whole of Great Britain through consultative councils to the Minister, or can it be that the consumer realises that this is a mere waste of time, or even that if he becomes too vociferous in his complaints he may ultimately suffer from victimisation at the hands of the single supplier of the commodity he needs?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. and gallant Member has made the point that whereas under the Act there are gas consultative councils, the people of Scotland appear to have accepted everything with acquiescence. But the machinery is there. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will tell us of any private monopoly

that gives comparable machinery for consumer expression.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): It is all done in Scotland by municipalities. Anyone but the hon. Member would know that.

Colonel Hutchison: If the hon. Member will allow me I will develop that very theme, because this accessibility of local authorities is one of the main arguments we put forward for the change that it is proposed to make. What is certain is that, whether the reasons I have given or the suspicions which I have are right or wrong, the voice of the consumer is certainly not ringing out "with strength and emphasis."
What else was claimed for nationalisation?
Socialisation"—
said by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Foreign Secretary in 1946—
can give vitality to industry by providing new and fine incentives born of public spirit.
What are the facts? An industry with happy labour relations, which had run for many years completely free of strikes, suddenly finds itself plunged into a strike in London which ended in the indictment of some of the strike leaders; and the Scottish Gas Board in their Report say that there was an 18 weeks' strike of gas fitters in Glasgow. At the annual conference of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, one of the delegates said, with no doubt a great deal of truth:
A sense of frustration permeated the workers in the gas industry.
What now of the senior officers in this important industry? Sir R. Burrows, in his report on the coal industry, wrote these words—they apply, perhaps, not quite so forcibly to gas but at any rate they apply:
Perhaps the worst feature of this form of organisation is its effect on the responsible officials in the divisions. Deprived of the opportunity to show initiative and constantly at the beck and call of headquarters, they tend to become depressed and to lose drive.
Is it surprising that they lose their initiative, when I tell the House that a senior official, responsible for a turn-over of £300,000 a year in gas, is allowed an expenditure on his own authority of only £50? If he wants to spend more than that, he has to go to the head of the


group, who in turn is allowed to spend £200. If something more important than that is required, the matter has to go to the Board. That same individual, formerly in charge of the same responsibilities, was allowed to spend all that was needed on the maintenance and repair of his undertaking, for which, of course, he was accountable, and only had to get prior consent when it was a question of any capital expenditure.
Nationalisation is slowly but surely creating a race of discomfited, frustrated, obedient, unthinking "yes" men, concerned only with how they are to procure their immediate boss's smile, for on that their job ultimately depends.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): The hon. and gallant Member has told us that before nationalisation there was never a strike in Scotland. Now, he tries to tell the House that nationalisation is producing a breed of "yes" men. Surely, there is a great contradiction in these two statements.

Colonel Hutchison: The hon. Lady will have noticed that I am now dealing with the category of senior officials, men who, if the thing is to be successful, should be enabled to take decisions, to develop their initiative, and to be enterprising; and it is they whom I characterise as being discomfited and frustrated.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member earlier implied—and, indeed, said expressly—that since the nationalisation of this industry there had been at least one strike, and he implied that before nationalisation there were no strikes in the gas industry. Surely, that is not his argument, for is it not quite inaccurate and not in accordance with the facts?

Colonel Hutchison: It is not inaccurate; it was an industry notoriously free from labour troubles but immediately nationalisation came in, whether it be coincidence or not I will not argue, we had two strikes, one in London and one in Glasgow. With this stockpile of shortcomings, is it really surprising that we in Scotland seek to make some sort of change? Look at the Scottish position for the moment. All controls chafe; distant controls chafe severely, and there can be few people now in this country

who are unaware of the deep-seated discontent stirring Scottish thought at present. It takes a variety of forms, from resolutions at the Church Assembly to the disreputable removal of the Stone of Destiny. I am not concerned about the Stone, but I am very concerned about Scotland's destiny.
Let us look at the First Report of the Scottish Gas Board, which, as I said, made its debut in February, 1951, for the period ended March, 1950. It says that Scotland is one of the 12 administrative areas into which the country was divided with 194 undertakings. Sixty-four of these were already administered by local authorities but they produced, let it be noted, 83 per cent. of the gas. These areas were sub-divided into five divisions and further into 11 groups. The areas of these organisations only partly followed country boundaries. Scotland produced in that year 44,629 million cubic feet of gas of which 3,192 million cubic feet was coke oven gas, and this was supplied to 1,196,507 consumers.
We will not hide the fact that we have always recognised on this side of the House that some form of reorganisation was needed, but we have never agreed that the solution, at any rate as far as Scotland is concerned, is the concentration of the whole unwieldy affair in London. When industrial organisations reach a certain size they start to lose efficiency and not to gain it. Local control slackens, supervision is relaxed, competition tends to disappear and the spur of efficiency is blunted. Nationalisation comes in with its long-range control and tries to take over what has already been destroyed and clamps the whole of the organisation in the rigidity of an iron jacket operated from a long distance away. That is why the Hayworth Report said that:
complete centralisation can therefore safely be rejected.
But it is complete centralisation which has in fact been imposed.

Mr. William Ross: Nonsense.

Colonel Hutchison: It is all controlled from London. I do not know which hon. Member said that it is not, but the fount of the whole organisation is in the South.

Mr. Ross: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to be unfair, but the actual structure of the undertaking throughout the country is divided into autonomous areas.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: They are not in the least autonomous.

Colonel Hutchison: They are not autonomous at all. An officer with a £300,000 turnover of gas has to go to a group officer for expenditure of £50.

Mr. Hamilton: The First Report of the Gas Council states, in paragraph 333:
The emphasis is on the 12 Area Gas Boards who are individually responsible for the conduct of their business and for paying their way, taking one year with another.

Colonel Hutchison: Most certainly, but the whole edifice is founded on the Gas Council at the top. I admit straight away that a certain amount of autonomy has been handed out in gas—

Mr. Ross: That is rather a change from what the hon. and gallant Member said a moment ago.

Colonel Hutchison: No, but the buildup is in Whitehall and one has only to study the Act to see that. It sticks out a mile. The balance sheet says that in Scotland we are dealing with assets of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £19 million. In the first 11 months there was a loss of £283,000 made by the Scottish Gas Board but I am prepared to agree straight away that the new prices were not effective throughout the whole of that period. They did not completely come into operation, and it should also be noted that the cost of administration of the Board was £419,000 and that a tribute was paid to the Central Gas Board, I should like hon. Members to note, of £30,000. Hon. Members cannot at the same time say that there is no control. Gas, however, is not the biggest sinner.
There is nevertheless evidence of central control very obviously present. Meetings are held in Edinburgh, meetings are held in the divisions with Board liaison officers present. The Board liaison officer is given the right to come to decisions within the limits of his delegated authority. What is his delegated authority? There have been 27 meetings of the Board in Edinburgh in 11 months. Now they are

held twice monthly and the executive committee meets weekly and visits are paid by the liaison officer. The governess complex is very obvious there. I do not think they are to be blamed because I do not think it would be fair to set up any organisation like this and not expect it to be anxious about its responsibilities and to probe its duties. It is one of the inevitable effects of the nationalisation system.
How do we propose to temper this discontent sweeping through Scotland? If hon. Members look at the Preamble to the Bill, they will see that sufficient expenses are to be provided and, in the subsequent Clauses, we explain the manner by which that is to be carried out. The first Clause sets up a Scottish Gas Council.

Mr. McAllister: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the Preamble, may I point out that it states
to reorganise the gas industry in Scotland.
Could he give an idea of why he wants reorganisation? I take it that neither organisation nor reorganisation are good things in themselves, but the Preamble might have given an indication of the purpose of reorganisation.

Colonel Hutchison: I hope I may be allowed to answer one point at a time. I thought I had spent the best part of a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes cataloguing why we thought reorganisation was necessary.

Mr. Bing: I seem to have a defective copy of the Bill because there is no Preamble in my print.

Colonel Hutchison: If the hon. And learned Member, who is so meticulously careful, will read the first lines—

Mr. Bing: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean the Long Title of the Bill?

Colonel Hutchison: That will suit equally well. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has succeeded in getting to the place at last. The first Clause sets up a Scottish Gas Council charged in the main with advising and continuing to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on gas problems. It is charged
To promote and assist the development and) maintenance of an efficient … supply.


It will no doubt have its eye on the efficiency of the concerns as they run, and no doubt consider standards that shall be set as to pressure and quality, and no doubt it will turn its attention to coordinated research, which is so important a feature in all these matters. It will no doubt also act for the Secretary of State for Scotland in negotiations with other national bodies such as the National Coal Board and the Iron and Steel Corporation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is it contemplated in this Bill that the new Gas Council shall be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland and is the Secretary of State for Scotland to be responsible and to answer Questions in this House about it?

Colonel Hutchison: They are set up, as the Bill says, to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are appointed by him and in that measure are responsible to him. As regards answering questions in the House of Commons, that will be one of the problems, as hon. Members will see, that they are charged with examining and about which they will no doubt make recommendations. I believe that it is another of the grievous defects of nationalisation that there is so little information obtainable from Ministers in the House of Commons by way of question and answer. So far as I have any part to play in the matter, that would be alleviated and improved.
Once the Council is appointed—and be it noted that the Council would consist of a chairman, deputy-chairman and four to eight members—all the details such as quorums, remuneration, etc., are already laid down in the main Gas Act, and we would leave that aspect undisturbed. We are not dogmatic in our desire to wipe the slate clean.
Turning to Clause 3 of the Bill, we find there the pith and substance of the whole matter, because this Scottish Gas Council is charged with bringing forward a scheme, within two years of the commencment of the Act, and presenting it to the Secretary of State. In the meantime, of course, the status quo is maintained. The scheme would divide Scotland into what the Council considers to be the most suitable viable units. They will not be

all of the same size. Geographical considerations and availability of supply will guide the Council's consideration, and the units will not necessarily follow the county boundaries, though it is desirable that as far as possible that should be done because we envisage in the main, if not entirely, that the supply of gas will be in the hands of local authorities.
Why are we so anxious to use local authorities? Not merely because they did it previously, but because gas is so preeminently a local supply question. Gas does not travel far, there is no question of a national grid, and it is a most suitable activity for local authorities to look after and managed. Their management is cheap, they are democratically elected bodies, accessible, tangible and their members can be pestered by their constituents, in complete contrast with the ghostly bodies which guide our destiny behind closed doors in London. There would then be no need for pusillanimous consumers' councils because access to those who are responsible for the local gas supply would be there all the time.
We hope that there would be a combination of local authorities. The scheme which the Scottish Gas Council would put forward would, I imagine, at any rate provide for that. If local authorities in combination or singly do not want to take back their gas undertaking, power is given in the Bill for a scheme to be made which will include the setting up of public utility concerns or even, if it is thought that by such a scheme the public interest would be best served, contracts with industrial concerns. In each case provisions and safeguards would be introduced on matters of quantity, quality and price. Those details can be varied by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Council in the light of later experience.

Mr. McAllister: The hon. and gallant Member said that safeguards would be introduced to see that the quantity, quality and price of the commodity produced would be right. Could he be a little more specific? The Scottish Gas Board, in their First Report, referred to the difficulty of maintaining sales of export breeze to Scandinavia. In what way would this Bill help to produce breeze coke required for Scandinavia?

Colonel Hutchison: I am talking about the gas itself, not breeze coke. It is


reasonable that before this responsibility is handed over to local authorities arrangements as to quantity, quality and price which would not hold the public up to ransom should be set out. I will not go into more detail of how that will be done. There are price sliding scale methods and so on. It would be one of the main tasks of the Council to consider that and make recommendations as to which method was the most suitable.
As I say, these conditions and particular boundaries can be varied in the light of experience. We have no desire to run baldheaded into so big a reorganisation and development as this. We prefer the probing approach which would have stood this country in much better stead had it been applied to the nationalisation of industries when that was brought about.
It is not for me to anticipate, as hon. Members have been seeking to make me do, what the Scottish Gas Council would report. But it would only be a form of elementary justice if they recommended that the local authorities in Scotland should get back their undertakings for the pittance at which they were taken away under the nationalisation Act, when the authorities were compensated only by being relieved not only of their assets but of their outstanding loans. To give an example, Paisley had an undertaking worth £600,000, a reserve fund of £70,000 and outstanding loans of £136,000, and so was paid £66,000 for assets valued at £600,000. Whether the undertaking would be returned on that basis or not, I leave to the Scottish Gas Council to make their recommendations.
I imagine that there will be power for the appointment by the Minister of nominees to local authority boards or joint boards if things are not going satisfactorily. Again, trying to anticipate what the Gas Council will recommend, I imagine there will be power to change from local authority to public utility if any of the units in their scheme fails and does not give the results expected of it.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me?

Colonel Hutchison: I do not think I can. I have already given way to other hon. Members. I am no more frightened

of the hon. and learned Member than of any one else, but there is a time limit on this debate which hon. Members opposite seem to seek to have shortened.
The final subsection empowers the Scottish Gas Council to make recommendations on consequential matters. What they might be I should not like to outline. They might include profit-sharing schemes that were abandoned, they would certainly include safeguards against unfair discrimination and provide for future finance, and if necessary Government guarantees or loans. They would provide, no doubt, for centralisation of research along with research organisations in England, training schemes, grid expansion schemes and so on. The annual report of the Scottish Gas Council's activities would be produced and made available to Parliament.
Other matters will no doubt occur to hon. Members on both sides of the House as they turn over this project in their minds, but these will be the Council's responsibility and not mine. The scheme would therefore be produced, could be modified by the Secretary of State and ultimately, as I have said, would be presented to Parliament for its consideration. I have considerable sympathy with the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has duties which are varied and manifold—too varied and too manifold—and he may be anxious about having yet a further burden thrust upon his drooping shoulders. I beg him not to be too anxious. We give him a good Man Friday in the shape of a Minister of State of Cabinet rank to help him in these other matters. That is not in this Bill but in a proposal which emanates from this side of the House. He need not droop too much before the prospect of this further burden.
That is the outline of this little Bill. It is not a grandiose affair but certain things will be done; and it will remove the grip of Whitehall from one Scottish industry. It is a move towards our conception of a property-owning democracy; for the ratepayers, large and small, will be able to have a voice in the running of their own property, and be able to heckle and pester their own representatives. If it does not completely restore direct competition, it does introduce a measure of rivalry, and from rivalry


progress is born. It brings us back to more manageable units away from the unwieldy uneconomic concerns to which theory, not thought, has brought us and dogma has, land not logic.
I submit this Bill to the House with confidence that sense will triumph over prejudice, that Scottish common sense will triumph, and that in gas at least Scotland will get back her own.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. and gallant Friend has explained, with extreme moderation and reasoned logic, the case on a subject which we on this side really believe to be of great importance to the best interests of Scotland that of efficient gas production and also a wider interest which I will come to as I develop my speech. We are extremely indebted to him for the hard work which it is obvious has gone into the preparation of his case; for his thorough understanding of what he has set out to achieve and his exposition, which I think that on the whole, hon. Members will agree was certainly not provocative and was entirely constructive. [Laughter.] There was nothing but construction in it [Laughter] the laughter is noted and will be reported in HANSARD.
I wish to look at the whole problem from a slightly different angle and to ask why in the first instance was the gas industry nationalised by the Labour Party? I may say that many of us have been puzzled as to what they considered the real merits of nationalisation. Was it to improve efficiency? If it could be argued by anyone that nationalisation, either in this country or in any other country has improved efficiency there might be a case.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose—

Mr. Maclay: Let me come to my second point. Was the purpose to achieve more effective democracy? If it could be shown that nationalisation in this country or in any other country has achieved more effective democracy and better human relations then there would be a strong argument to consider.

Mr. Mitchison: I just wanted to know if the hon. Member had considered the Heyworth Report, which recommended nationalisation and integration in the interests

of efficiency. That was a very able and expert report.

Mr. Maclay: The Heyworth Committee, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, were satisfied that there was a need for some reconstruction of the whole gas industry. The report was an excellent document which it has always been claimed recommended nationalisation. But we have not accepted that. It was one flaw in an otherwise admirable survey of the situation, in that nationalisation was too easy a way out, bearing in mind that there was no evidence that nationalisation solved any problems. In any case, the Heyworth Report was drafted before there was experience of nationalisation in this country on any big scale. Now, alas. we have had six years experience. We have learned a good deal and I think the people of the country have learned a good deal too.
Let us look at the structure from the point of view of efficiency. I shall have to cover a certain amount of ground covered by my hon. and gallant Friend. Let us consider the size of the undertaking. Surely we all realise that there is a point at which an undertaking becomes too big. The undertaking covers the whole of Scotland, the Orkneys and Shetland, the outer Isles and down to the Border, 30,400 square miles with a population of five million and 1,196,507 consumers if hon. Members require the exact figure. That is a huge unit.

Miss Herbison: Is the Gas Council proposed in this Bill to cover that same area in Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: I was coming to that point in my next remark. I accept that it is possible for a policy body to have a reasonable supervising interest and control even over a big area, but not for an executive body. There is a tremendous difference as the Coal Board has been learning painfully and slowly. The structure, although the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) stated earlier it is decentralised, from all the implications is it not. There is the Gas Council in London—forget that for a moment if we can, though not for long there is the Scottish Gas Board with five divisions and 11 groups. Here is an extract from a Report:
Officers, who, with one exception, are managers of an undertaking in the particular


division or group have been appointed as divisional controllers or group managers and as such exercise general supervision over the undertakings within their territory. They advise on any matters submitted to them by the district managers, have a limited power to incur expenditure beyond that fixed for the district managers and are responsible for the execution of the Board's policy.
Every sensible person has over the past 20 years considered the possibility of State ownership solving certain problems. I know from bitter experience that this question of ultimate financial responsibility is where State ownership must always break down. When I say that I learned by bitter experience perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote from personal experience.
For four years I worked as a temporary civil servant. I was brought into a Ministry at a time in the war when there was chaos in shipping, due to the over running of Scandinavia, along with others who had been in shipping but not as civil servants. For a short time we acted in the same way as we acted in our own offices. We made decisions on the telephone and moved as fast as we could. That was right and necessary because there was considerable chaos.
When the chaos began to settle a bit I began to learn the bitter lesson which convinced me finally that State ownership could not work above all because of this question of financial control. On one occasion I made a decision over the telephone about a ship. So far as that ship was concerned it was a correct decision, but it involved the expenditure of a considerable amount of money.
A colleague whose office was along the passage was dealing with another ship in the same port and unfortunately he made a different decision. In his case his decision was equally correct, but we had different views on it. Either could have been right. The whole point was that my bill was large and his was small and the accountant general said, "No matter how right your decision was these two amounts cannot stand together. You must check with your colleagues before you incur expenditure like this."
I am sorry to develop this so fully, but it is the whole heart of my argument. The lesson I learned was that where even a comparatively small sum of money was involved, because I knew my Minister

might be attacked on the Floor of the House or in the case of a nationalised industry the executive might be attacked, I became cautious. I help up decisions I might have made on the telephone in order to walk down the passage to talk to my colleague and ask "What are you doing about it?" If he was out at a meeting I would come back and write it out on a piece of paper.
I can tell hon. Members opposite that permanent civil servants were far quicker at getting these things done than we amateurs who came in and learnt the hard way, that in an undertaking of any great size one cannot make one's own decisions involving fairly heavy capital expenditure without checking it through the machine. That is where inefficiency starts and sooner or later initiative goes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has used an argument about ships. Would he suggest that warships should not be owned by the State?

Mr. Maclay: I shall not be drawn aside by that red herring. I make no apology for adopting this theme. This is my personal experience.

Mr. McAllister: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a singularly strong argument for what hon. Gentlemen opposite usually call bureaucracy. He gave evidence of one decision involving a very large expenditure of public money and another decision on the same issue involving a very small expenditure of public money. Surely, that argument leads clearly to the conclusion that this degree of bureaucracy would lead to a large saving of public money?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point of my argument. I shall have to deal with what he said. The whole point is that shipping, gas or anything else is not suited to handling on this large scale. I pointed out that both decisions could perfectly well have been right, but they could not stand together in the same machine.

Mr. Mitchison: Ought it to be left to private ship owners during a war?

Mr. Maclay: No, certainly not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is a peace.

Mr. Maclay: I used the illustration because occasionally one is allowed to


quote from personal experience in this House. I was giving a fundamental reason why I believe that State ownership will fail. That is my own philosophy, my own approach to the matter.

Mr. Hamilton: We may or may not agree that the Heyworth Report recommended nationalisation, but we cannot but agree that the Report recommended that one of the area boards should cover the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: The Heyworth Report is not gospel. We believe that it has already become obvious that the area is far too big. We believe that the work can be far more efficiently done. I am still on the point about efficiency. There is a bigger point to come, and I had better get on to it.

Mr. Ross: The new gospel is the same as the old one.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Read the Bill.

Mr. Ross: Read your own Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Order. I have not got a Bill.

Mr. Maclay: I am always willing to answer interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but probably it would be in the interest of all concerned if I went on with my speech.
We do not believe that the present system is efficient. I admit that the failure of gas nationalisation so far is not quite so spectacular as some of the other failures. But it has not yet shown either improved quality, improved relative price or, I submit with some firmness, any evidence of improved human relations or the achievement of that incentive urge which we heard so much about in "Let us Face the Future."
I should like to quote some fairly good evidence to support my statement from someone who may be acceptable to hon. Members opposite. I should like to quote no less a man than Professor G. D. H. Cole, who wrote in "Labour's Second Term":
It would be foolish to shut our eyes to the fact that there is serious discontent in the nationalised industries and services and little sign as yet that the new incentives on which the success of Socialism must finally depend are being brought into play.
That is what Professor Cole wrote. Hon. Members opposite have a

terrific responsibility. For 50 years past they have led people to believe that there was some mysterious magic in Socialism. They have let their people down. I quoted Professor Cole at a recent meeting in the county. There was one fierce opponent in the audience who got up and told me flatly that I was a liar. I had to get the article from a newspaper and show it to this man to let him see that the leaders of Socialism thought today had now recognised what we have been saying as hard as we could in our warnings to people for years.
Hon. Members opposite have a terrible responsibility. They have an opportunity, by accepting this Bill—as I feel certain that they will, when they have heard the rest of the arguments. They can begin to bring wisdom back and re-establish the position that people should have a proper place in democracy. From the democratic point of view, it would be enough as an argument for nationalisation if hon. Gentleman opposite could show that there was democracy in it. What in fact happens? There are no Questions allowed in the House on matters of detail; no elections to the boards of management or the gas consultative councils. Is that democracy? It really is not.
Let us turn to another good authority, Beatrice and Sidney Webb who, long ago, said that there were:
…obvious reasons why many industries and services have to be municipalised rather than nationalised.
I come to the question of what was the real motive of nationalisation. Some people, including the hon. Lady the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), think that it was efficiency. Some may think that it was more effective democracy; but I do not think that in either case they can make a sound argument. What was the motive? The motive was part of this wretched, miserable theory of centralisation under the central Government.
Our object in presenting this Bill is two-fold. First, we believe that by the schemes which would be possible under the Bill we should get greater efficiency, better prices and better satisfied consumers. Secondly, we believe that one of the most important elements in democracy will be strengthened if we give back to the local authorities certain powers which have been taken away from them.


That really could become effective democracy. One must repeat what has happened to these local authorities recently. They have lost their powers to deal with gas, electricity, hospitals, municipal airfields and valuation for rating, and street transport is going by stages.

Mr. Hamilton: River pollution.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that. I felt very strongly on that subject. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present to register my vote, for reasons beyond my control. But I feel strongly that these powers have gone. What is left? Hon. Members opposite will say that the local authorities are complaining that they are overworked. Of course, they are. What has happened is that they have been given a mass of duties in which they are not free to act without authority from somewhere else. They are loaded down with restrictions and references back to Edinburgh or London. They are very hard worked; but they have singularly few powers left.
They have also lost their trading services which a really efficient local authority could handle in such a way as to make them into revenue earners, to the great benefit of the local ratepayers. We want all that restored in some form or another. I sincerely hope that this Bill will be given a Second Reading, the reason being that we believe that we can achieve greater efficiency, better gas, better human relations and, at the same time, strengthen the foundation of British democracy which I am convinced is local government.

2.19 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Both the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) presented a very poor case. The hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun did little to recommend the Bill. I do not think that he will have persuaded this House that it is a good Bill; nor will he have persuaded the people outside—certainly not the intelligent people of Scotland. I propose to show that this is a bad Bill. I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman by using a number of

adjectives: I am prepared to use arguments.
This Bill attempts to dilute nationalisation, to water it down, with a view to the ultimate abolition of the nationalisation of the gas industry. I oppose this Bill because it is contrary to the best interests of the people of Scotland. It would bring chaos into the gas industry in Scotland; it would increase production costs, damage labour conditions and increase capital charges. It would also intensify distribution problems, interfere with sales policy, injure the development of rural areas and would prejudice the extension and the general utility as an industry of the production and distribution of gas. [Laughter.]
It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh when I present them with these arguments, but I hope to satisfy even them before I sit down that they have no case, and that this Bill should never have been brought forward. This scheme is contrary to the well-tried maxim that unity is strength, because it would divide Scotland for purposes of gas production and distribution, would break it up into a number of districts, and would undermine its integrity as an economic unit.
The two questions which I venture to say the House has to consider today are these. Is the present structure in Scotland sound, and, secondly, should Scotland be carved up, or remain for this purpose a unit, as it is now? There are many other objections to this Bill. It is unnecessary, because the industry has been already fully nationalised. It is too late, because it essays to deal with the task in a petty way, whereas it is already being dealt with in a big way. It is inept, because the re-organisation which it en-visages would damage Scotland's national economy.
The Bill would set up a Gas Council, when there is already existing a Gas Council. The Bill would give the Gas Council functions which are already being performed efficiently and well under the Gas Act of 1948. The Bill would redraw areas of supply, which are already well settled. The Bill would transfer gas undertakings which have already been transferred, and it would re-organise—and there is no peculiar virtue in the word re-organise—for the sake of re-organisation, because it would re-organise an industry which is already fully and efficiently organised.
This Bill attempts a work of supererogation. It is even worse than that. It is a wanton misuse of time and effort, because the Gas Act, 1948, was passed after expert, diligent and exhaustive inquiry into the needs of the situation, the result of which was embodied in a comprehensive Statute of 77 Sections and six Schedules, while this petty Bill attempts in six Clauses to undo the work of that very useful Act of 1948. It attempts to undo it without any adequate inquiry such as was undertaken before the Bill of 1948 was introduced.
In these circumstances, it is necessary to look at what has been done, and compare it with what this unnecessary Bill seeks to do. The Act of 1948 was not undertaken without full and expert inquiry, and it was not a Labour Government which set up that inquiry. It was a former Government in 1944 during the Second World War which set it up. The Heyworth Committee of Inquiry, a skilled and expert body, was set up with these terms of reference:
To review the structure and organisation of the Gas Industry, to advise what changes have now become necessary in order to develop and cheapen gas supplies to all types of consumers, and to make recommendations.
They did make recommendations, and they did their work very well, as I shall show.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Did they cheapen?

Mr. Hughes: On 1st November, 1945, that committee of inquiry presented its Report, an elaborate and extensive Report of 294 paragraphs of detailed and comprehensive character. It presented that Report to Parliament. Its Summary of Recommendations included 16 paragraphs adumbrating a complete regional board plan. I shall not trouble the House with those 16 paragraphs, but shall refer to only three. The first recommends:
Compulsory purchase of all existing undertakings. Independent machinery to be set up to determine fair compensation.
Another says:
Division of the country into ten Regions in general accordance with the map attached.
The third says:
Regional Boards to be set up to take over all undertakings in their Regions
The map referred to showed 10 regions, one for Scotland. as was right and proper,

Scotland being treated as one unit, unlike the scheme which hon. Members opposite now put forward to divide, break up and disunite Scotland for this purpose. England and Wales were divided into nine units.
The Report strongly and repeatedly expressed its faith in large units, and that is the keystone of the discussion today. This Bill, without adequate inquiry, contradicts the careful findings of the Hey worth Report. It would destroy Scotland as a unit, it would divide Scotland into separate units, and, without logic and without advantage, it would probably cause extra expense.

Commander Galbraith: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if there is any real connection between Aberdeen and Dundee as far as gas is concerned? Is there a pipe running between the two places, or not?

Mr. Hughes: I should like to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am dealing with this matter in a national way, and not in the petty parochial way which his question indicates or in the petty parochial way in which this Bill seems to be introduced. That is a wrong approach, and I want to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is contrary to the expressed view of the Heyworth Report, which emphasises the value of large units as against the disuniting of Scotland by breaking it up into small units. I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to paragraph 230 of the Report, which says this:
The direction of the required change is clearly marked, namely, towards groupings into larger units. This is preponderantly the view of the industry itself. It is in no sense a revolutionary Idea; it is entirely consistent with past history, which shows a steadily accelerating trend towards integration.
That is the paragraph which is so strongly against the philosophy or the policy which is behind the Bill presented to us here today.
The Report proceeds to give in detail the reasons for recommending the plan in favour of larger units. The Report says:
The main objects which grouping into larger units can be expected to promote are"—
There follows a list of eight, but I will only refer briefly to four. The first looks forward to some reduction of production costs, and goes on to give further reasons


for that particular proposition in these words:
The overall scope for improvement in these directions is relatively limited and will arise through reduction in number of production units and a general raising of technical efficiency in undertakings which are at present too small to provide adequate scientific control.
Yet hon. Members opposite—

Colonel Hutchison: Colonel Hutchison rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment. Hon. Members opposite seek to negative this very reasoning and to break up Scotland into a number of small units, whereas the Heyworth Report, implemented by the Gas Act, 1948, treated Scotland as one unit. Now I will give way.

Colonel Hutchison: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman also read paragraph 242 of the Heyworth Report, which says:
Complete centralisation can therefore safely be rejected as inappropriate?

Mr. Hughes: Quite. This is not a case of complete centralisation by any means. The Heyworth Report recommended the division of this country into 10 units, and the Minister, satisfied with the reasoning of the Heyworth Report, which he called conclusive, divided the country, not into 10 units, but into 12 units—

Colonel Hutchison: Who controls the 12?

Mr. Hughes: —having regard to population and economic considerations. The Minister, having divided the country not into 10 but into 12 units, treated Scotland as one unit. Now I will give way.

Colonel Hutchison: I was just going to ask the hon. and Learned Gentleman who controls the whole 12?

Mr. Hughes: The point that I am making is that the Heyworth Report, a thoroughly expert and respected Report, emphasised the value of large units. The Minister divided the country into large units. Yet now this petty Bill which is proposed today is designed to divide the country into small units. Now I have dealt with the first argument which was put forward by the Heyworth Report.
The second is this. It made the recommendation because it thought it would

lead to improvements in labour conditions, and it made it in these words:
One aspect of this arises in small units it which the necessary mechanisation to reduce the amount of manual physical effort cannot be justified on cost considerations alone, or which do not possess the necessary capital resources.
That, in my submission, is sound reasoning, and it shows how unsatisfactory small units may be from the point of view of the workers in the industry.

Mr. Maclay: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Time is short, as the hon. Gentleman said himself.

Mr. Maclay: But will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I have given way several times, I must proceed with my argument. The third reason put forward by the Heyworth Report was this. It said that it would result in further economy in capital charges, and it gave the reasons in these words:
This can reasonably be expected to flow from the better use of production and distribution plant made possible by treating large areas as one. One aspect of this general question is already demanding attention, viz., where a highly developed but relatively restricted urban area is losing population through slum clearance, thus bringing about redundant production capacity.
Hon. Members will see that each of the three heads to which I have referred in the Heyworth Report emphasises the value of large units and criticises the dangers of small units. Yet this Bill which is proposed today seeks to divide Scotland into small units and to negative the very benefits which were adumbrated by the Heyworth Report.
The fourth point put forward by the Heyworth Report on this matter is this. It expects very intensive study of distribution problems, which, of course, hon. Members will agree, is necessary for the future of the industry. Indeed, the Heyworth Report makes that point in these compelling words:
Large groupings would permit a higher level of technical skill, facilitating the planning of development on the best possible long term projections of future demand.

Air Commodore Harvey: Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield) rose—

Mr. Hughes: I must proceed with my argument. I have given way several times, and other hon. Members wish to speak. The other four points made by the Heyworth Report I shall not elaborate. I shall just mention them. They are, concentration of sales policy, easier and better distribution of "fringe" and rural areas, extension of the coke grading and selling effort, expansion of research and its applications.
The sound and compelling plan adumbrated in that Report was adopted in the Gas Act, 1948, is the plan on which an attack is made here today, and that reasoning was adopted by the Minister of Fuel and Power, who described it as absolutely conclusive. The Minister's judgment has been proved correct. The Act received the Royal Assent on 30th July, 1948, and, ever since, the new organisation has worked smoothly, efficiently and well. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the official reports. I shall refer to the official reports, and they will show that there is no reason whatsoever for this tinkering attempt to spoil the great plan of that Act of 1948 or to negative its operation by dividing up Scotland into small units.
Let me refer to what has happened. The new statute started operating in May, 1949–1st May, 1949. That was the date appointed by the Minister of Fuel and Power as vesting date. On that date the gas industry passed into national ownership, and 1,037 undertakings were vested in the Gas Boards of the 12 areas into which Britain was divided, 11 for England and Wales and one for Scotland. Today the relevant point is, Has this worked well? The reports to which I shall refer briefly show that it has worked smoothly, effectively and well. Someone has referred to the Report of the Gas Council.
I think that it was on 7th February, 1951, that the first Report of the Gas Council was presented for the period from 30th July, 1948, to 31st March, 1951. That Report proves that the structure is sound and is working well. I quote one paragraph from it which states:
The new structure of the gas industry— the third of the fuel industries to pass into national ownership— differs from that of the other two in the degree of decentralisation explicit in the Act creating it. Here the emphasis is on the Twelve Area Boards. They are severally responsible to the Minister for

the conduct of their business and are therefore given the powers necessary for that purpose.
So much for the structure.
The Report is a comprehensive one, and in its Conclusion it says this:
But it has been a year of solid achievement in many directions. The change-over was effected smoothly. … As will be seen from the reports of the Boards, savings have already been made in a number of their activities— bulk buying and transport, for example— which, if individually small are cumulatively far from negligible. What is more important, improvements in supplies and services have been secured in a number of places where they were badly needed.
That is the first Report of the Gas Council.
Let me now turn more particularly to Scotland, and refer to the first Report of the Scottish Gas Board. That was presented on the 14th February, 1951, for the period from 1st January, 1949, to 31st March, 1950, and there has not been time for a further report since. This proves that in Scotland the structure is sound and working well. It also proves, and says, in so many words— I will quote three observations from it, because it is a comprehensive report of many paragraphs—
The first year of the new system has been one of both difficulty and encouragement.
Again it says:
Co-operation in many directions has gone far to meet the situation and to offer promise for the future.
It also says:
The public have shown understanding and sympathy and an increasing recognition of the fact that the industry belongs to them and is devoted to their service.
I submit that the history and administrative experience to which I have referred, and to which these reports refer, show that the Act of 1948 was framed upon the right lines; that this structure was sound and its operation has been satisfactory. These quotations show also that there is no justification for the present Bill. I hope that it will be defeated, because it is contrary to the best interests of Scotland.
I would say one further word. Private Members' time during which this Bill was introduced is a valuable institution and procedure in this House, and should be used well for constructive and not destructive purposes. Here and now I submit that it has been used solely to alter a Statute very recently passed, so


as to destroy its purpose and effect. Hon. Members opposite are entitled to attempt to do that, but I submit that in this particular case there are three valid reasons why they have taken a wrong course.
The first is that the Statute was very recently passed by this House; the second that it was passed by an enormous majority after full examination and debate in this House and in Committee; and the third, that it was passed so recently that the organisation which was set up under it has had no adequate opportunity of showing its utility. Notwithstanding that, the reports to which I have referred show that even in the short time it has been in operation, it has proved its utility, and this Bill which attempts to impair that utility should be rejected by this House. I hope mat it will be.

Commander Galbraith: Is the House to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is representing the views of his constituents in North Aberdeen by what he has said to the House?

Mr. Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes me to engage in discussion as to whether a Member of Parliament is a delegate or a representative. If I attempted to discuss that topic, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) seems to have started with some strange premises. He told the House that gas in Scotland was already fully and efficiently organised. At other times, he was telling us that we have to give the nationalisation of gas time to run. I do not know to which argument he wishes to attach himself. He has referred freely to the First Report and Statement of Accounts of the Scottish Gas Board. They say on that subject:
The broad picture of possible economic integration schemes has not yet been filled in.
They say in their conclusions on page 20 of the Report, dealing with the results of the war, which have, of course, held up to a very large extent the provisions of maintenance and new equipment:

Some steps have been taken to remedy the situation but it will take time to complete the plans.
Whatever else may be said, it is quite clear that whether or not the gas industry under nationalisation will ever be fully organised in Scotland, it certainly is not at the moment.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to consider that because the Act nationalising gas had been passed in this House and by a tremendous majority, it should be regarded as one of the laws of the Medes and Persians which changes not, at least unless it suits the Medes and Persians. That surely cannot be sustained. I should like to refer to some correspondence which has been in "The Times" recently about Labour policy.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman is making a point against me that I said that the Gas Statute which was passed should be sacrosanct and never criticised in this House, I can tell him that I said nothing of the kind. I said that it was passed so recently that the organisation set up under it had not a fair opportunity of being tested but, notwithstanding the short time that it has been working, the Report shows that it has worked smoothly and satisfactory and with utility to the country.

Mr. Macpherson: Certainly prices have been put up. Let us consider the particular point I was making. What is it that Labour policy apparently seems to be concerned about? We hope that we shall have Members on the other side, if not all of them some of them at any rate. with us in this matter. The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) wrote:
As to national ownership, it is conceded that we must envisage the problem of decentralising power and of encouraging greater participation by the workers and management.
He also says:
To aim at greater decentralisation of power in industries already taken over.…
He says some other things and concludes:
Such is the policy for the future that would be acceptable to a united Labour Party.
If there is such a thing.
That was replied to by Lord Winster. who said:
The problem of decentralising power in the nationalised industries certainly requires investigation.


That is the reason the hon. and learned Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) has done such a great service in raising the matter in this House today. He gives us an opportunity of investigating it. Lord Winster went on:
I would prefer to call it delegation of executive authority.
The Bill we are discussing contemplates, of course, two suggestions; in the first place, the establishment of a Gas Council in Scotland, thus detaching Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom so far as gas is concerned, and secondly it contemplates that the Gas Council, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, should get out plans for decentralising their authority and making workable units.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, made great play with the fact that larger units were recommended in the Heyworth Report. No one disputes that. and indeed that is part of the object of this Bill. It does not contemplate the handing back to each of the 200 separate installations that existed in Scotland before. It says quite specifically that decentralisation will be to a very large local authority or otherwise a combination of local authorities as we have for many services already, such as the Fire Service and the Police.

Miss Herbison: There is one point that is worrying me. The suggestion is that the gas undertakings will be handed back possibly to the big municipal authorities. There was a large number that were not owned by the local authorities. Are we to force the local authorities to take those over?

Mr. Macpherson: That will be essentially a matter for the Gas Council to recommend, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with here.

Miss Herbison: This is the Second Reading of a Bill on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to get support, and that is surely a most important point which ought to be made clear on Second Reading.

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Lady will read the Bill she will find that what is contemplated is quite plain.

Miss Herbison: Not at all. I have read the Bill thoroughly, and there is not one thing in it to say what type of body will

take over those undertakings which local authorities may not want.

Mr. Macpherson: Admittedly local authorities may not want them, but in Clause 3 (1, b) she will see the form that the decentralisation will take.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry to interrupt again—

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady must not go on interrupting. She has made her point quite plain. Her point is that in this Clause we do not specifically say that it is the local authority that will in every case take over. Well, local authorities are not the only possible form of organisation. Do let us bear in mind that in Scotland there was far less justification for the nationalisation of the gas industry than in any other part of the United Kingdom, because in Scotland the local authorities were already responsible for 83 per cent. of the annual gas output before the taking over.
We must also consider how the thing is working out in terms of what the objectives were. There was an argument for taking over the electricity industry, because there was already the grid, and already a degree of standardisation imposed, in the nature of the case, throughout the Kingdom. But that in no way applied to gas, and could not apply to gas. There was no such standardisation. It is interesting to note that, speaking for Scotland, no such standardisation is contemplated now. On page 12 of the Report the standardisation of tariffs is referred to, but that tariff standardisation is limited to the adoption of
sound principles… in the fixing of prices as between the various classes of consumers.
The Report says quite clearly that they do not contemplate fixing the same price throughout Scotland; different prices will apply in different districts. In their conclusion they say that there was a great variety of conditions applying to gas throughout Scotland. Nor, indeed, do they seem to have any intention of standardisation of plant, because they say on page 8, where they refer to additions being made to gas making plant, that there are 13 vertical retort extensions, six horizontal retort extensions, seven carburetted water gas plants, and five other gasmaking plants.
What can be the purpose of having a single over-all board running an industry of that description? It may be said that it gives a certain over-all financial control. But the financial control is really one of the vital controls; it is with financial control that responsibility really goes. Our argument is that if the financial responsibility is decentralised—not just the imprest accounts that at present exist, but the financial responsibility, so that the localities themselves can plan and take decisions in the best interests of those localities— we shall get the best results for gas in the Kingdom as a whole.
It is not a matter of providing an overall plan. It cannot be that, in the nature of the case. Gas has to be conveyed in pipes. Gas distribution is limited by physical circumstances in a manner that does not apply to electricity. Of all things, gas is essentially a local undertaking, and it can therefore best be run as a local undertaking.

Mr. Pannell: What does the hon. Member mean by financial control? In the Gas Act the area boards are the important bodies. They approximate more nearly to national boards in other regards, and I believe that national boards are made up of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the area boards. Financial policy is only relevant so far as it affects the Government loans generally and over-all capital policy.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and for that purpose Scotland is itself at present an area. What we say is that it is too big a unit. We know that within the gas industry there is already more decentralisation than in the other nationalised industries, but our case is that there is not nearly enough.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. This is something which has to be seriously considered by the House. We maintain that the very nature of the distribution of gas makes it completely unsuitable for nationalisation, and it is essentially a local authority, or at any rate a local, concern. We believe that the future democracy in this country must continue to be founded upon localities, upon local patriotism and local interest, and built up from that. It is for that reason that we recommend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he explain one thing? He talked much about local authorities, and once mentioned the "joint board of local authorities," but he has said nothing about "such other undertaking." Would he like to explain that?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not want to go into details. It is quite obvious. Indeed, one of my hon. Friends referred to a public utility company. I hope that answers the point.

2.57 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): I am very glad indeed that this Bill has been brought forward, because it gives us a chance to deal with much of the criticism that has come from the Opposition in Scotland, not only of our nationalised gas industry but of all our nationalised undertakings in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel Hutchison) suggested that we had made a claim that nationalisation would lead to greater efficiency and to lower prices, and I shall deal with those points.
First let me deal with the question of lower charges. It is true that in some districts in Scotland the price of gas has increased since nationalisation. It increased only in those districts where the price was not covering the costs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, giving figures, that what was charged more than covered the increased cost of coal. In running the gas industry one has to take into account more than the rise in the price of coal. We had to take into account the reconstructions, developments and repairs that were necessary to certain of our gas undertakings.
There is another point that I want to make very forcibly. Do the Opposition suggest that gas should be the only thing in Scotland or in Britain that should have gone down in price? One hon. Gentleman interjected, "What about wool"? What about any commodity provided by private enterprise today? If we compare the 1948 price with the price today we shall get a proper picture of what has happened to charges in the gas industry.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the hon. Lady not agree that private enterprise has not


guaranteed that if a certain course is adopted there will be reductions in price, whereas one of the basic features of nationalisation was the promise that there would be reductions?

Miss Herbison: The hon. and gallant Member cannot have followed my argument. The logic of it is that if we still had our gas industry under private enterprise our people might have to pay a higher price today for their gas than they are paying. The fact is that the price of gas per thousand cubic feet, where it was very high, has been reduced since the nationalisation of the industry.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Not overall.

Miss Herbison: I explained why, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not here.
The present structure is the one which was recommended by Sir Geoffrey Heyworth in the Report. He suggested that we should have units where we could have greater efficiency, and one of those units was to cover the whole of Scotland. That has taken place, under nationalisation.
The suggestion had been made today that the unit is too big and that under the Bill we would give back those undertakings to local authorities or to combinations of local authorities. Just as rivers pay no attention to local authority boundaries so, we find, is the case with gas undertakings. We have had quite a number of reorganisations already. There is our plan of linking grid schemes. Many of them go beyond local authority boundaries, or from one into another, and it may be almost impossible to do what has been suggested and yet have the chance of the efficiency that we expect, and indeed are certain will come, in our gas undertakings for the provision of gas to our people. [Interruption.]
An hon. Member asks "When?" I will give him some examples of what has already been done in this matter of greater efficiency. About 24 schemes for interlinking of works have taken place. It has meant that three gas works have been closed down. If we had not had our present scheme those works would have had to get new machinery and it would have been almost impossible for

some of them to do that as private concerns. Our linking schemes have made it possible to provide our people with gas, and to do so more efficiently. We have under construction at the present time about another 30 schemes of linking by attaching certain districts to the grid. That is made possible because Scotland is regarded as a unit, and it would be impossible if we were to follow the schemes suggested here.
The hon. Member skated beautifully over the question I asked him. I suggest that there is not one hon. Member on either side of the House who has any idea, to judge from their speeches, what would happen to the undertakings if local authorities do not want them. Who will control them and be responsible for them?

Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Lady puts those questions; but the argument ought to be put on the other side. What would happen if the local authorities were left with the least profitable undertakings? The hon. Lady asked what is going to happen to undertakings in which the local authorities are not interested. I assure her that they will be properly taken care of.

Miss Herbison: I have always understood that the person presenting a Bill and asking for support has to make perfectly clear what is meant by the provisions of the Bill. We are satisfied that Scotland should be regarded as a unit, and it is for the Opposition to make out their own case, but so far they certainly have not made their case out on that point.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the hon. Lady—

Miss Herbison: No, I am sorry, 1 cannot give way when there are many people on both sides of the House who want to speak. What I have said deals with the question of efficiency. I now want to go on to remote control. I have read what the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) has said about it in an article in the "Glasgow Herald." This continual harping on "remote control from Whitehall" shows clearly the ignorance I use the word in its proper sense of the hon. and gallant Member and those who are supporting him on the present occasion.
Whitehall control, I take it, means that we have control from London by the Gas Council. The controlling power of the Minister under the Act is to give directions of a general character only. Under the Gas Act all area boards are virtually autonomous. What is the composition of this bogey man, the Gas Council, which has its office in London? It is composed simply of all the chairmen of the area boards, the Scottish chairman and the chairmen of the other boards—

Colonel Gomme Duncan: Ten of them.

Sir William Darling: Nine to one against Scotland.

Miss Herbison: But Scotland usually has such fine representatives that she is not terribly worried about it being nine to one.

Colonel Clarke: The hon. Lady says that the Gas Council has very slight control, but is she aware that for that very slight control the Scottish Area Board pays £30,000 a year in contribution and another £12,700 in financing its expenses, so either they are being done because they are paying for things they are not getting or they are getting more than the hon. Lady thinks?

Miss Herbison: Neither of these alternatives is correct, and I shall deal with both when I come to that point. There are the chairmen of the area boards, and an independent chairman and a vice-chairman appointed by the Minister. What is the function of the Gas Council?

Sir W. Darling: It is difficult to know.

Miss Herbison: It has important co ordinating functions on matters of common interest to the gas boards, but it cannot exercise power over any board in the whole of Britain—[An HON. MEMBER: "Financial."] Not even financial powers. It cannot exercise any power over the policy of the boards. Indeed, it is not empowered in any way to give directions. In a sense, I would say that the Gas Council acts in a federal capacity.
The powers of the Council really leave the boards free to follow their own policy. They are independent of the Council as regards finance, and the Council is used

as a co-ordinating body between the boards in connection, for example, with the raising of capital or of capital investment. The staff of the Council is relatively small, financed by the various area boards. It does to a great extent what the British Gas Council did when the industry was privately or municipally owned, and the work it does is very important.

Colonel Hutchison: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady and I do not want to interfere with her speech, but this is fundamental to the whole conception. Section 2 of the Gas Act says that it shall be the duty of the Council to promote and assist the efficient exercise and performance by area boards of their functions. That is a very wide power.

Miss Herbison: I have already stated what that power is. The Council is not empowered to dictate to or to direct the policy of the area boards.

Colonel Hutchison: It says so in the Act.

Miss Herbison: Indeed it does not say so. The private industry, the municipally owned industry, felt there was need of a co-ordinating body. The Gas Council is, in the main, doing the work of that co-ordinating body. I take it that one of the main reasons for bringing forward this Bill is to transfer ministerial responsibility from the Minister of Fuel and Power to the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Colonel Hutchison: Colonel Hutchison indicated assent.

Miss Herbison: The Minister of Fuel and Power at the present time consults the Secretary of State for Scotland on all important matters concerning Scotland. Take, for example, a really important matter: the appointment of members to the Scottish Gas Board; that has been done in full consultation with the Secretary of State. We have also found, since the industry was nationalised, that the Scottish Board has always shown the greatest readiness to co-operate and to enter into discussions with the Departments of the Secretary of State.
No suggestion has been put forward by any of the hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition side to show how Scottish interests have suffered because the Minister responsible for the industry is the Minister of Fuel and Power.


Far from there being remote control in the industry, I am glad to have this opportunity to make it clear to our Scottish people that there is no truth whatever in that contention, which has always been made.

Mr. Maclay: Mr. Maclay rose—

Miss Herbison: I am sorry, I cannot give way. There are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak and many points have been raised with which I must deal.
Now, we come to the claim for decentralisation. It has been suggested that not only the gas industry in Britain, but the Scottish gas industry, is over -centralised; that the provisions in the Bill would break down these over-large organisations and would put them into manageable units. Those who make that claim are certainly completely out of touch with the facts. The Scottish Gas Board is free under the Gas Act to set up whatever form of organisation is most suited to the needs of its area; it is not bound in any way. Just as it has been suggested that the super-Gas Council that the Bill proposes will set about making a scheme, the Gas Board in Scotland already has the authority under the Act to set up whatever organisation it thinks will best suit the needs of Scotland.
The policy of decentralisation was, indeed, one of the fundamental features of the Gas Act. Hon. Members opposite may be able to say that that was not a central feature of the Coal Act, or that it was not, perhaps, so much an essential feature of the Electricity Act, but decentralisation is certainly a fundamental feature of the Gas Act, and that is the Act with which we are dealing today.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: May I intervene for a moment, having spent 72 hours continuously on the Gas Act—

Miss Herbison: I did, too.

Mr. Bracken: I know. The hon. Lady must remember that the whole argument put forward was that the gas units were too small and that centralisation was necessary. That was what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly said upstairs. Has he changed his mind? The hon. Lady should read his speeches.

Miss Herbison: I do not have to read his speeches. Unfortunately, I was one of the hon. Members on the Gas Committee, and one of those who listened to half an hour being taken up by the Opposition on how to spell "nationalisation." There is scarcely a thing in that Act about which I do not know. The right hon. Member has certainly not been following my argument.

Mr. Bracken: I certainly have.

Miss Herbison: There is a difference between what we call decentralisation and the claim of the Opposition about what is in the Act. I emphasise again that decentralisation is certainly a fundamental function of the Act. The Scottish Gas Board has established a number of groups: I expect most hon. Members know them, and so I will not weary the House with details. The divisions that have been set up by the Scottish Gas Board are, indeed, the economic units to which the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun referred in his article in the "Glasgow Herald."
Now, we come to the role of the local authorities. We have not heard a great deal said about this, but I am taking this excellent opportunity to deal with a great deal of criticism that has been made about the industry and the criticism that the Bill is supposed to clear up. There is, I suggest, some doubt on the degree of independence which should be left to the local authorities and to the other nebulous bodies that are proposed in the Bill. In addition to supervising, promoting and assisting— these are the words of the hon. and gallant Member— the pro posed Gas Council would retain the power to vary the areas, which would seem to imply power to compel local authorities to combine for gas purposes. That is one important point.
The local authorities might look a little askance at the intention to provide for a nominee of the proposed council to attend local authority boards when things were not going satisfactorily. That again has been the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, in the article headed "Unionists' Gas Industry Plan." Their proposal that the new council would evolve a price regulating system would not be recognised in Scotland as restoring responsibility to private enterprise, or to local authorities.
I come now to the final point. The hon. and gallant Member said today that if we were to carry out the provisions of this Bill we would return to profit sharing schemes. We have been dealing with the gas industry in Scotland—

Colonel Hutchison: I did not say that. I said that among the things considered by the Gas Council would be whether it was desirable or not. If the hon. Lady reads HANSARD she will see what I said.

Miss Herbison: I expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to get support from the people in Scotland for this Bill. I expect when this letter, or article, was written to the "Glasgow Herald" he was wanting to get the support of the people in general and of the gas workers in particular. Here are his own words from that article:
But they might well turn their attention to"—
not considering, but—
reconsidering, the profit sharing schemes which existed so satisfactorily before nationalisation.

Colonel Hutchison: What is wrong with that?

Miss Herbison: There is nothing at all wrong, except the inference that in Scotland there were already profit sharing schemes before nationalisation when there was not a single profit sharing scheme in the whole of the gas industry of Scotland. That is what is important about it.
Now we come to the consumers' interests. The Scottish Gas Consultative Council was just pooh-poohed; it was not important because it was said in their Report that they had had no serious complaints. They did not say they had had no complaints at all, but the complaints they did have, they said they were able to deal with administratively. Is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing? The hon. and gallant Member suggested that our people in Scotland were muzzled and were afraid to go forward with these complaints, but if we set up this new Gas Council they would have someone to whom they could go. Let us look at this Gas Consultative Council. There are 24 members on it. These are nominated and their names put forward by the Scottish local authorities' associations.

Colonel Hutchison: Some of them are.

Miss Herbison: I am going to deal with the others. Others are nominated, and their names put forward, by the Scottish Trade Union Council. Surely that is democratic. Those are the two main bodies that put forward nominations for the Scottish Gas Consultative Council. This Scottish Gas Consultative Council—

Lieu-Colonel Elliot: Appointed by the Minister.

Miss Herbison: Yes, of course, finally appointed by the Minister, but their nominations come from the local authorities and trade union interests in the main. This Consultative Council has appointed five district committees. These correspond with the divisions under the area boards. The representatives on these five district committees to look after consumers' interests again are drawn from nominations by the local authorities' associations, the Trade Union Council and similar bodies. I think the hon. and gallant Member suggested that if the Minister of Fuel and Power decided to do so he could wipe out this Gas Consultative Council. The Act would completely prevent that from happening. Only if a new area were formed would that be possible.

Mr. Bracken: Were the Gas Consultative Councils— so nicely described by the hon. Lady— consulted before the price of gas was raised in Scotland, as I am informed they were not?

Miss Herbison: Again the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Before any change is made in gas prices or in tariffs the matter in every instance is taken to the Gas Consultative Council in Scotland. At all of those meetings at which those prices have been discussed the Press has been there and has been able to report on the discussions.

Mr. Bracken: The decision was taken first by the Minister.

Miss Herbison: But consultation was carried out with the Consultative Committee, and if they had any point to put forward it would be considered— the Minister is not responsible— by the area board. [Interruption.] I wish to make this point perfectly clear. I have had so much experience of the right hon.


Gentleman's rudeness, not towards myself, but in Committees; I wish to tell him that on his own side of the House the Scottish Members at least want to know these things, and I suggest that he should let me get on with the case I am making. The Minister has no power in price fixing. That decision is taken by the area boards.
I come to the question of compensation, which was referred to in the "Glasgow Herald" article, and it was again referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman today. In the article in the "Glasgow Herald" it was stated:
When nationalisation came along the assets of the local authorities were taken away from them and they were at the same time grossly underpaid.
The fact is that local authorities were not paid for the gas undertakings. I wish to make that perfectly clear. I suggest that no question of payment could arise where under nationalisation there was a change whereby one public authority took control from another public authority. The local authority undertakings were built up largely by the, consumers, who are still the consumers of gas in Scotland, whether they be in Glasgow or Edinburgh. The cost of any payment to the local authorities for those undertakings would have fallen on those very consumers, and the only people who might have benefited in any way— in Glasgow, Edinburgh and the other places— from such a transaction would have been the people who did not use gas in their homes. That to me would have seemed very wrong indeed.
Local authorities were, however, compensated in one respect— in respect of the severance of their gas undertakings from the rest of their activities. A sum of £2½ million was provided for this purpose for the whole of Britain, and Scotland received a little over £500,000 of that sum. Any liabilities local authorities had in respect of their gas undertakings, including outstanding debts on capital account were of course taken over by the Board—

Sir W. Darling: What about the surpluses? They were taken over too.

Miss Herbison: In some instances they were, but the deficits were also taken over. The whole undertaking was taken over and no local authority was left with any liability.
I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised by those who have spoken. I am still not at all clear what the Opposition expect to get for Scotland out of this Bill. I am absolutely clear that they do hope to get some kudos from certain people in propaganda. But there are just one or two general observations that I wish to make. There are serious drafting defects in the Bill, and one of them is that there is left out what are the principal objectives to be worked out in the scheme. They talk airily about setting up this council, but they do not give even adequate guidance, far less details, for the proposed scheme. We have had much criticism on this side about delegated legislation. This is one of the biggest pieces of delegated legislation which I have seen since 1945. The Bill as it stands makes no provision for co-operation between the gas industry in Scotland and the industry in the rest of the country on such matters. There are important matters about which we should have consultation, and I propose to mention one or two of them.
There are such matters as conditions of employment. What will the workers in the gas industry say about this proposal? I meet many of them in my constituency and they will certainly want to know what their conditions of employment are to be. What about training and welfare facilities for workers, what I might term the uneconomic units? Will there be the same chance for workers and operators in the industry regarding training and welfare? And what about what is to me the most important thing, co-ordination in research? Gas is made from coal. That may be a truism, but coal is the most hardly won raw material in this country—

Colonel Gomme- Duncan: Especially under nationalisation.

Miss Herbison: I would be quite willing to discuss with the hon. and gallant Member what has happened under nationalisation. Coal is the most dearly won raw material, and I want to see that raw material used to the greatest advantage. To do so we must have research. We are having difficulty in attracting young men to the coal industry. That is not to be wondered at. We hear of our Knock skinniness and our Easing tons, but those of us who come from mining districts, and who live among miners, know


That it is not only the big disasters that catch the imagination and sympathy of the people, but what is happening every day in the mining industry.
I see our pneumoconiosis suffering from having worked in this industry and some at the present time denied compensation from the private owners of insurance. The Coal Board has honored all of these. I see miners with broken backs going about in chairs. We have no right to set up in Scotland little uneconomic units—and the Bill does not show anything else—which will not give a proper chance for co-ordinates research.
These to me are some of the most serious defects. They are matters of great importance for the welfare of many people and for the most economic use of the dearly won raw material. Co-operation in these and other matters would obviously be less effective if the industry were fragmented into a large number of undertakings, as is suggested by this Bill. It would be difficult to ensure that individual undertakings, particularly the small ones that I know of, even in our industrial areas in Scotland, were able to benefit properly from the pooling of ideas and resources. For all those reasons we hope that the Bill will be rejected.

3.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): The hon. Lady wound up her speech by a strong appeal to allow this Bill to go to Committee where the various points she mentioned can properly be thrashed out—or at any rate that was the effect of her concluding remarks. It is quite true that there are a number of points to be cleared up and that is what the Committee stage of a Bill exists for. We shall be very pleased to join with the hon. Lady in thrashing out such points as are obscure and indeed in remedying such defects as she may find if, as I have no doubt she will, she joins with us in allowing this Bill to have a Second Reading and to go to the Scottish Grand Committee, where it can more properly be discussed. She seems to shake her head. Perhaps it may be because of the lack of time available to explain what is in the Bill.
We have suffered a great deal in this discussion from the deliberate obstruction

carried on earlier, notably by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who did his utmost to prevent Scotland's needs from being discussed here, by unnecessary verbosity upon a previous question. [Interruption.] I have not indulged in unnecessary verbosity as much as the hon. Member, and I trust that I shall not before I come to the end of my remarks. Although we are limited here on the Floor of the House, we have ample time in the Scottish Grand Committee to which this Bill should properly go. Therefore, let it go there. I look to the co-operation of all hon. Members on all sides of the House to see that it should go there. If they refuse it, we shall tell Scotland who has refused it and why.

Miss Herbison: I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are not in the least worried. We have made our case perfectly plain today. We want nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady does herself less than justice. She may think that she has made the position perfectly clear, but if she looks over her remarks I think that she will find that she singularly failed to do so. She discussed a number of points that it is not difficult to disprove from the very Report that she quoted. She made a great point at the end about research, for which we all have the very highest regard. We all regard research as extremely necessary. She cast some unwarranted suspicion on those who previously had charge of this industry and, incidentally, made a damaging attack upon the great local authorities of Scotland who controlled 83 per cent. of the industry.
I draw her attention to the proposals of the Gas Council to which she attaches so much importance on the question of research. They say:
The Council has therefore continued to support the Gas Research Board, and the areas boards have continued the work started by their predecessors.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be less than fair if he did not say that this Report was published 11 months afterwards, and if he were to read the whole of the comments on research he would see that these are interim measures in order to use what is available at present.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady should read the whole Report.

Miss Herbison: I have read it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before she enters into this argument, she should read the account in the Report of the admirable research work that has been done, including the changeover from the raw flame to the heating mantle to which the Report pays striking tribute, and the introduction of the pre-payment meter which it characterises as:
a stroke of psychological as well as of Mechanical genius,
I think that the position is pretty clear. Indeed, we all know that in fact the gas industry, and the great gas corporations, private as well as public, were outstanding in the field of research and application. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock knows very well, the great Corporation of Glasgow, the great Corporation of Aberdeen, and the great Corporation of Edinburgh yield to none in their devotion to research and their anxiety to make the best use of the scarce raw materials that are at their disposal.
The Minister spent most of her time in two singularly difficult and, it seems to me, impossible tasks. She tried to disapprove the existence of the Minister of Fuel and Power, and to pretend that taking control away from Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Glasgow and concentrating it under the Ministry was to be regarded in some way as decentralisation. These were her major contentions.
First, as to the existence of the Minister of Fuel and Power, it is quite true that he tends to be a very changing figure. He appears and disappears so rapidly that it is a little difficult for us to know who he is, but, at the moment of his existence, he certainly is a very live character. The hon. Lady said that the Gas Council cannot do very much, that it is really so shadowy that we should not worry about it, because the Gas Council cannot have anything to do, and cannot interfere in Scotland. As for the Scottish £30,000, it is given for fun; it is one of the amusements which the Scottish people have in contributing £30,000 to a Council which really has no power of dealing with them at all. It is not like the British Gas Council before

the war, because I do not think that a contribution of that amount was made to the British Gas Council before the war.
Here is the Scottish Gas Board's First Report and Statement of Accounts. Let the hon. Lady take it and look at it, and let her see, on the very first page of that Report:
… I have the honor to send you the First Report and Statement of Accounts of the Scottish Gas Board.
That is what the Chairman says. From where does it come? From 6, Randolph Crescent, Edinburgh. To whom does it go? To the Minister of Fuel and Power, 7, Milbank, London, S.W.I. He is the man who gets the Statement of Accounts, and believe me, we know very well, when we get the Statement of Accounts, where the authority lies.
Who are the people who are mentioned in it? Who are the various Committees? By whom are they appointed? By the Minister of Fuel and Power. The hon. Lady says, "Well, after all, the Minister of Fuel and Power does talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland." It would be a very odd thing if he did not. Are we to suppose that the two Ministers are not on speaking terms? Surely, they talk to each other and have some intercourse? But by whom are these people appointed? By the Minister of Fuel and Power. To whom are the accounts rendered? To the Minister of Fuel and Power.
The members of the Consultative Council are appointed by him, those of the Area Board are appointed by him, and yet the hon. Lady tries to pretend that the Minister is, after all, a negligible figure. She says that the Consultative Council consider the matter before prices are raised. Well, let her look at the reference to the raising of prices in the Report of the Consultative Committee, to which she attaches so much importance. She will find, on page 23, that the information is supplied by the Board:
…the Council did not consider at that time that they were in a position to express views on the suggested increases in individual districts.

Miss Herbison: They did not think they were in a position to do it, but the prices were taken to them to consider, and that is the point that has been made all along.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What did they say about it? They said that they were not in a position to consider it. Really, the excuses of the hon. Lady will not hold water.

Mr. Ross: What they did say was that the proposals were taken to them before the increases were made, and the Report goes on to say that the Council, while recognizing that the additional cost which the Board were required to meet rendered unavoidable increase in prices, did not consider that it was in a position to express views on suggested increases in individual districts.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If that had happened in the case of the Glasgow Corporation, the electors of Glasgow would have considered that the Corporation was in a position to express views on the increase in price in individual districts, and when the Minister raised the price of gas 7d. in Glasgow, without anybody knowing by whose authority, and, when the Consultative Council says it cannot give any opinion whether the price should be raised in any individual district or not, does the hon. Lady not think that it is removing power from the democratically-elected representatives of the people? Of course, it is. What about Edinburgh?

Miss Herbison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made the suggestion that the Minister puts up prices. The Minister has nothing whatever to do with the raising or lowering of the price of gas. It is left to the Area Boards.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, the hon. Lady may tell that to the Marines. Really, the suggestion that the Cabinet of this country has nothing to do with the price of gas in a nationalised industry is not the sort of thing that she can get away with on the Floor of the House of Commons. The graven of our charge is that she has to— perhaps, I should not say has to— make embarrassed apologies for a Minister who does not deign to come down to the House when this matter is raised. The hon. Lady has done her best to say that this is a great challenge to the whole principle of nationalisation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who has been singularly absent from our councils for a considerable time

since he contributed his quota to the discussion, said that this was a challenge to the whole great Act of 77 Sections and four Schedules. I should have thought that the Minister might at least have deigned to have looked in while all that was under discussion, but he has taken no part, at any rate, in the discussion, and it has been left entirely to the hon. Lady, struggling gallantly against adversity, to make her case and to try to explain away his existence.

Miss Herbison: This is a Scottish matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The suggestion there is that the Minister should not speak about Scottish affairs, but, really, when the account is addressed to the Minister of Fuel and Power at 7 Milbank, London, I think it is not unreasonable that we should expect to hear from him to whom the statement of accounts is forwarded.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Neal): I am flattered that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should want a humble Sassenach to take part in this debate. If time permitted, he would not be disappointed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, when a humble Sassenach has taken away control of our own affairs we think it is very reasonable— when he has taken from us that power— that he should at least come forward himself to justify his actions. These are the acts of the Government. They are under the seal and authority of the Minister of Fuel and Power, and we say that these acts should be reversed and that that authority should be withdrawn.
The hon. Lady and those who spoke on her side say, "Oh, but it is impossible. This is a fragmentation of Scotland, cutting it up into small units." How, then, does the hon. Lady explain the action in the case of electricity? What magic is there in this, that an old lady in Aberdeen lights her gas fire by permission of the Minister of Fuel and Power in Whitehall, but that if she switches on her electric fire she does so on the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland working through the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?
I listened with great alarm to the hon. Lady's argument. Every single line of it was devoted to proving by implication that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board should also be abolished, and that control of that should be taken away and placed here under the control of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Every single word of her argument led directly to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have any authority in Scotland at all, and that it would be best if it were passed down here into England, where this co-ordination could be carried out, where research could be carried out which could not otherwise be done through a Scottish authority, and where the interests of the employees could be looked after, as though that could not be done at all in Scotland.
She did not explain why the 13 weeks' strike of gas workers in Glasgow broke out as soon as nationalisation took place, although they had worked happily under the Glasgow Corporation for many years. It may or it may not have been remote control but it looked like remote control to the gas fitters in Glasgow, who could not get an answer one way or another to their questions. The hon. Lady will remember the Scots story of the little boy who said to his mother in the tram: "See the wee dug, miter," to which his mother replied, "It's no a wee dug, it's a little dog." The child replied, still unconvinced," Wheel, it's awful' like a wee dug."

Miss Herbison: I cannot go specifically into the reason for one unofficial strike in the gas industry, but there has been during this debate a criticism made of dissatisfaction and the strikes in many other nationalised industries. I want to put forward one point of view, and I am not putting it forward as applying to this particular strike, because I do not know the details of it. In the coal industry, which I know best. There are categories of workers who have threatened to strike and some of who have come out on strike, but they did not do it under private ownership because they were afraid of losing their jobs. That applies in many cases, and I could give chapter and verse. If I had the time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will leave the hon. Lady to settle with the Glasgow Corporation this suggestion of victimisation

being carried out against the Corporation's employees, by a Council which was Socialist for some 20 years.
I only say that clearly a case for further discussion of this Bill in Committee stage has been made out, with universal agreement on both sides of the House that it is an interesting proposal, as we can see by the vehemence with which the arguments and counter-arguments have been discussed. Let this matter be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee by Scottish Members in their own surroundings where we are not trespassing on the time of the House. If it is threshed out there, there will be no doubt what the verdict of the Scottish Members will be.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin grove (Lieut. Colonel Elliot) has skated round quite merrily for 20 minutes without answering effectively any of the arguments that were put forward by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. The hon. and gallant Member who opened the debate gave the game away at the outset when he said that the Bill was inspired by a violent hatred of nationalisation and centralisation. We know that. and we respect the view of hon. Members opposite; we do not agree with it, but we feel that they are entitled to it. But they must, before they tamper with any nationalised industry, prove that it has failed, and that the alternative structure which they propose will succeed.
Let me deal for a few minutes with the point which the mover of the Motion made. He said that the industry did not in fact deliver the goods and had not produced the results that we, the supporters of nationalisation, said it would produce. I believe that may be true, for the simple reason that in two years we cannot tell in the reorganisation of any industry whether that reorganised structure will succeed or not.
The gas industry is on trial at the moment. What we can say is that the structure before nationalisation certainly did not deliver the goods, and it was that industry which had the support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. When they talk about the nationalised structure being far too big an organisation, which, I think, was the main theme of the speech of the hon. Member for


Renfrew, East (Major Lloyd), who is one of those who support structures like the I.C.I and Unilever—

Major Gay Lloyd: Will the hon. Member apologise to the hon. Member for Renfrew, East, who never mentioned the subject at all?

Mr. Hamilton: I meant the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay). I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon.
So far, not one hon. Member has spoken from practical experience of the gas industry. I do not myself pretend to have any technical experience, but I have done the next best thing and obtained opinions from people who have that technical experience of the Scottish gas industry. I have here a letter from a district manager of the Scottish gas industry. He is not a Labour Party supporter. In fact, in a recent local election he ran his car for a Conservative candidate. I have met the gentleman only once, and I did not know what his attitude towards the nationalisation structure was, but I sent him a copy of the Bill and asked him for his comments. I will not read his comments at length, but he says—

Mr. W. G. Bennett (Glasgow, Woodside): What is his name?

Mr. Hamilton: I am not giving the gentleman's name. Commenting on the Bill, he says:
Why redraw the areas of supply when the present areas selected by the Board have shown so little cause for revision.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question

Mr. Hamilton: There are three minutes yet. He goes on:
Only where it has been proved that economy in costs can be made or and higher efficiency given to the consumer has the Board transferred an undertaking from one group to a neighboring one, and as a matter of fact the changes were made only a few weeks ago, so you can understand that serious thought was given to the matter.

Then, referring to the proposed transfer of gas undertakings to local authorities, this technician in the gas industry says:
What special qualifications have Scottish Town Councilors to run a gas undertaking?
This is his answer to his own question, underlined:
None whatever.
This is a Tory. He also says:
Divisional and group supervision"—
which is allowed for under the present set-up—
would be impossible"—
under the set-up proposed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—
and believe me, this high level supervision and planning has proved to be one of the most valuable products of national ownership.
That is a Tory speaking. Then he poses a question:
Re-organise the gas industry in Scotland? Tell them to take their minds back to [May] 1949 and ask them what the"—
The next word is an "h" with a stroke after it. Hon. Members can guess what the word is—
ask them what the h— you have been doing but re-organise the industry since then.

Mr. Hamilton: Not only did I get that letter, but I also got a letter from a workman, again in a local gas undertaking in my area. He talks as a workman producing gas, and says,
I think nationalisation has improved the industry, especially in rural areas, because prior to nationalisation those undertakings lacked financial backing. As a typical example, take Strathmiglo, the gas supply was very poor. However, under nationalisation larger mains have been installed and there is now a great improvement in the supply to consumers in this village.
I could quote other extremely—

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

It being Four o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

BRITISH RAILWAYS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Royal.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Deeds: I want to raise the subject of British Railways and public relations. In speaking of "public relations" I do not necessarily mean "public" with a capital P and "relations" with a capital R. That would be "Public Relations" in the modern and rather glamorous sense. I mean quite simply the relations of British Railways with the public. I have given prior notice to the right hon. Gentleman of points which I wish to raise, but before I come to them perhaps I might make three general propositions.
I am not seeking on this occasion to sidekick at the nationalised railways. As one who represents a railway community I am less interested at the moment in the fact that the railways are nationalised than in the fact that they do not happen to work as well as I would wish. Also, as one mixed up with a railway community, I have a good deal of sympathy with the various physical difficulties of the railways today, such as shortage of staff, the problem of coal and shortage of raw materials. In view of those difficulties it is all the more important that the public relations side of the railways should be as good as possible, and that the public should be induced to take a more sympathetic attitude than they do now.
The third point is that unless we accept the present state of the railways as final, which I devoutly hope is not the case, we should be prepared to give a little more information to let the public, the Press and Members of this House know what is going on, and we should not be frightened, as I think the Railway Executive tend to be frightened, of allowing the breezes of constructive criticism to play, in moderation, about the set-up of the railway as we now have it. In the end, it will benefit the railways rather than otherwise if they encourage from the public, from Members of Parliament and from the Press a little more constructive criticism and a more imaginative outlook.
The Minister will do well to look at the public relations advertising and publicity

set-up of the different Executives. There is a different public relations set-up for each of the Executives under the Commission. There seems to be an extraordinary difficulty in achieving integration in this sphere, which we understood was the object of the Act. If we are to have an integrated system of transport, it would be as well if public relations and advertising were ordered accordingly.
I am constantly approached on the subject of the closing of branch lines. I sometimes regard this as an integral part of the task of cutting the dead wood and I very often say to people who complain, "Accept it, but insist that an alternative bus system is provided in its place." That appears to be a constructive line to take. What often happens is that the closing of the branch line is given a lot of adverse publicity but no publicity at all is given to any alternative road service that may be provided. The consequence is that the public are led to believe that they are losing something and getting nothing in its place.
Recent advertising by the Railway Executive has not been calculated to inspire much confidence or public sympathy. Although the Railways have a monopoly, they ought to make their facilities known so that the public can be encouraged to make the maximum use of the services provided. In this the Railways still have much to learn from London Transport who provide a most excellent example of constructive advertising. A recent instance was the advertising which incorporated two preposterous figures called "Biff and Buff," who advertised the Summer-time tables until the day on which the Summer-time tables were cancelled.
I thought that when Biffs bluff had been called both Biff and Buff would have retired from the game. Not a bit! They re-appeared only last week, Buff opening by saying, "Oh dear, our new Summer train service shortened," Biff: "Freight must come first, Buff." That sort of advertising is hinderingly bad psychology. The publics are tired of Biff and Buff and never want to see them again. That is a particularly bad case of bad publicity psychology.
I should like to know from the Minister what progress is being made by the transport users' consultative committees. The


committee for the South-East area was announced last week. It is odd that such a long interval should elapse between the announcement that the committees would be established and the establishment of this committee, which has to serve five counties, only this week. May we know what complaints are being received by committees already established, what action they are taking and how, generally speaking, they are representing the consumers? What sort of work are they doing?
One is entitled at the moment to say that the representation of the consumer on the railways is dreadfully bad. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to encourage a more conciliatory attitude in the approach of the railways to local needs. At Ashford any change in local needs involving a change in a train service is regarded much as a five-year plan, and if anything is done by the end of the five years they reckon they have done well. I know the difficulties and I know that trains cannot be stopped, started and laid on at a local whim, but I believe that a more conciliatory and friendly attitude between local authorities, local chambers of trade and the railways would enormously increase good-will It is a most disappointing experience to try to get any alteration in the train service, even if one represents a large body of opinion.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognizes the great fund of loyalty that the railway staffs place at the disposal of the Executive. There are an astonishing number of people who are still exceedingly proud of the railways of this country, the engine drivers, and so on. All too often, however, they tend to side with the public in a genuine sense of bewilderment, frustration, and lack of understanding of higher policy. In the Western Region only last week we have had a petition being organised by the staff on an aspect which I do not pretend to understand. It would appear that Western Region are not even getting public relations straight with their own staff, let alone with the general public. Clearly the staff has not been properly informed.
Let me illustrate one or two other points upon which it would be as well if a little more imagination could be exercised. First there is the matter of

meanness. The Railway Executive should try to avoid petty meanness. Far too many cases reach my knowledge of widows and dependants being caught up in the machinery of the executive. Secondly— and I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice of this— I should be most grateful, and so would many others, for an interpretation of the rights and wrongs of the public in the use of first-class carriages. I never travel in one without a sense of deep embarrassment, particularly if the train is crowded.
It is altogether wrong that first-class carriages should be left empty when the train is overcrowded and women and children are standing in the corridors, and that on others the authority should apparently be that the carriages might be filled. A general interpretation would clear up a source of irritation amongst the travelling public, particularly in the summer. I have no sympathy with the scrimshank who travels habitually first-class with a third-class ticket against whom the railways have a strong case, but I have a great deal with the woman travelling with children who does not know what to do and occasionally gets caught with an extra fare to pay.
Thirdly, another point has occurred to me which I have put to the Executive and which has not been dealt with, Every main station in this country is equipped with loud speaker apparatus which is used to inform the public of the times of trains coming in and going out. I would like directions issued that the apparatus should be used to keep the public more perfectly in the picture in the event of delays and breakdowns or any other mishap.
While one has every sympathy with the accident which makes the train an hour late in a station, there is no reason why the loudspeaker apparatus should not be used to keep the public in the picture. Somebody without a written word should be able to say, "We are sorry, the train has blown a tube" or "The tunnel is blocked and you will be here for another 20 minutes." Being late is maddening, but being late and not knowing why is perfectly infuriating.
Fourthly, there is the appearance of locomotives. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the one characteristic of all Englishmen is to love engines. It starts very young and goes on until late in life.


To me a clean engine stands for a tremendous amount. It symbolists ride in service and the general esprit de corps of British Railways. I know that with the shortage of staff it is difficult to get the necessary number of cleaners on to the job and to keep the "Battle of Britain" and other engines looking as they should.
I have made the following suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. In connection with the problem of the re-employment of old-age pensioners, many of whom are exercised about the new arrangements and would like to keep on working or to get back to work, why should it not be possible for the unions and the executive to reach an agreement whereby older people might be used in small teams on the job of keeping engines looking as they should, a source of pride to British railways? Surely something along those lines might be thought out.
After the bitter battle of nationalisation, it is quite understandable that the railways should be shy of exposing themselves to partisan criticism, but it is not in their interests nor in the interests of the public that they should become too inaccessible. I feel that at present there is a danger of their building about them a ringed fence, behind which a good deal can go on which no one can check or criticise.
I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude for Lord Holcomb's in variably courteous, if not always punctual, replies to letters. If they are not punctual it is only because his department is dealing in a grossly over-centralised manner with far too many letters that I appreciate. I may run into some risk in saying that this particular channel of redress for grievances may be far less healthy than Parliamentary Questions and the publicity which they afford. In the long run, it will not be the Members of this House, but British Railways, who will suffer from the lack of Parliamentary Questions and the consequent publicity which is thrown upon activities, and lack of activities, in certain places.
We must face the fact that the public are generally—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can deny this—antagonistic to the railways. I take no particular pleasure in saying that I state it as a fact; and it is not for political

reasons only that, as the right hon. Gentleman would say, political hostilities have been stirred up in the system of the nationalised railways. The public have suffered acutely in many small ways in recent months and years. There is a great task to be done in building up, quite independently of physical difficulties, good will and understanding with the public, and in that respect only British Railways themselves can take the initiative.

4.17 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I find myself in a very large measure of agreement with the approach of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deeds) to the subject he has raised, but I certainly do not agree with his comments that the public are antagonistic to British Railways. I agree that there is a good deal of irritation and, I think, misunderstanding and irritation, but I feel that it is the earlier remarks of the hon. Member which are nearer to the truth.
In my view, the public has not in any way appreciated the special circumstances under which our railway administration has labored since 1939. The hon. Member himself indicated that he had a full and sympathetic understanding of our physical difficulties and problems; naturally he would, representing as he does an important railway center like Ashford. But I do not think that all these factors are appreciated, generally by the public at large.
I have emphasised in many of our debates on railway affairs the fact that during the war the circumstances of our national life took a very severe toll indeed of all the physical assets of the railways—it is the four main line companies of which I am speaking. In these matters, we ought in fairness to separate the factors over which the managements have no control so that we may be fair to the staffs who are carrying out this very important service.
We all appreciate, of course, that the circumstances after the war have not permitted the railways—neither the management nor the control—to have at their disposal the capital resources or the material or labour, or even the licenses, to enable them to proceed with the complete modernisation of the system. That working out in the railway administration from time to time does cause a sense of


frustration both on the part of the staff and of the general public; but, in my view this House, as part of the machinery of Government, cannot separate itself from those responsibilities, although we fully understand them. I was very much obliged to the hon. Member for the appreciation he showed in that respect.
As to his comments on the "Biff and Buff" form of publicity, as a Minister I do not consider that I should accept any responsibility for any particular advertising stunt of any advertising manager or personnel from time to time. I think that any professional advertising man, whether in a railway office or any other office, must have his advertising plan or method judged ultimately by the public and it will either add to his prestige or not, as the case may be.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): There is no doubt on this.

Mr. Barnes: I will be impartial in allowing hon. Members to express comments, but I say equally frankly that I do not think I should accept any responsibility in this direction.

Major Tufton Beamish: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that one has only to travel around the country to realise that the public as a whole resent their money being spent on this paralytic propaganda? Will he take note of that?

Mr. Barnes: That may be the case and the reactions of this House must be taken into consideration in judging whether that form of advertising is successful or otherwise.
But the Transport Consultative Committee is a very different thing and I carry a measure of responsibility here. In discussion that we had on the subject, I made the motives and factors which influenced me in this direction fairly clear. I did not consider that it was desirable to create the consultative machinery side by side with and immediately when I was setting up the British Transport Commission and the Executives. The major task of the British Transport Commission and the Executives were to take over existing properties and the British Transport Commission had to frame its schemes of delegation and get the Executives into operation. I did not feel that at that

stage the consultative machinery could function effectively until at least the machinery of executive management was created.
Immediately that process was over, the next step was to form the National Consultative Committee and then the Scottish and Welsh Committees. Then I addressed myself to the area committees throughout the country and the question of whether they should be formed on the basis of the six railway regions or the road transport areas was a matter for consideration, and later I decided that they should be formed on the basis of the licensing authority areas. I have made it plain that these are not fixed and arbitrary areas but that they are subject to modification in the light of experience. The whole of those 24 regional consultative committees are now in being and I take the opportunity to publicise the fact that I sincerely hope they will be used effectively in future.
I wish to emphasise the basis on which the consultative users' committees are built up. Although they are appointed by the Minister, nevertheless the Minister invites bodies like the Federation of British Industries, the chambers of trade and commerce, the National Farmers' Union, the Trades Union Congress and local authorities to submit panels of nominations. He then chooses from those panels, and taking into consideration the geography, the towns, the weight of industry and the population, endeavors to secure that a cross-section of the whole area is represented on the consultative committee.
I receive criticism that this town is not represented or that this industry in a particular city is not represented. I wish to emphasise that the success of these consultative committees depends on whether all the local authorities use the local authority representative as the channel for their representations, all the chambers of trade use the chamber of trade representative as their channel of representation and all the trade unions in the area—and there will be some hundreds of trade union branches—use the trade union representative if they wish to ventilate any grievance. If we can proceed on those lines, I think these consultative committees will probably be the best means of ventilating some of the difficulties to which the hon. Member has referred.
I was under the impression that this machinery, which is in operation, was working fairly well. If there are any occasions when branch lines or stations are being closed without full consultation, I am sure that if that is conveyed to me or to Lord Holcomb the matter will be fully investigated. I was under the general impression that this was proceeding steadily and naturally without undue public irritation. I would emphasise that one has experience that the public, having neglected and left a particular branch railway system, at once begin to emphasise, immediately the Executive propose to close it, how vitally important that particular section of the railway line is to their community needs. Here again, this consultative machinery can be used by anyone locally for the purpose of having the matter fully investigated. The constitutional position of the consultative committees is that they can obtain all the necessary information from the British Transport Commission or their Executives.
I join with the hon. Member in his appreciation of the loyalty of the staff. We have experienced the value of that devotion to the railway industry in particular in recent months during which we have been trying to clear up the backlog of freight traffic. A great number of the operating grades have voluntarily given up their Sundays to work extra freight trains in an endeavor to overtake that backlog. It is only right that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a railway area, and I should express full appreciation of those efforts, especially as we are living more and more in a period in which a great part of our industrial population thinks that Saturdays and Sundays are not legitimate working days. On occasions such as this, the House should bear in mind that the transport industry demands a 24-hour day and a seven-day week, and someone has to do the work.
I do not think that I can go into the legal problems of the rights of a first-class passenger. If a carriage sets off from one station empty, one does not know whether first-class passengers will enter at the next stop. The question whether a first-class carriage is kept

empty or whether passengers in the corridor are put in it must be left in the main to the uniformed personnel of the train, that is, the guard or the ticket collector. I do not profess to give a legal opinion but I have always understood the position to be that unless one has booked and reserved a seat one has no legal right to a seat.
I am not aware that the Railway Executive is not using the services of retired staff whenever it is possible to do so. One finds that the shortage and surplus of staff is very uneven in the industry. The Railway Executive has over 50,000 railway houses which they inherited from the old railway companies and most of them are governed by rent control. It is not possible to move the staff about without causing a good deal of irritation and difficulty. But so far as I know the Executive will take full advantage of the services of any retired members of the staff.
Regarding the reference to Lord Holcomb, I am glad to accept that acknowledgement of the attention which he gives to Members of Parliament. When this change took place, it was my wish that Lord Holcomb should attend personally to the letters from Members of Parliament. As every hon. Member knows, he was my permanent secretary and he prepared Ministerial replies for Members so adequately that I thought that if he were chairman of the Commission hon. Members would not lose by it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So there is no need for a Minister?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member had better reserve his opinion until some time when he may have ambitions him self in that direction, and then perhaps he will form a different opinion. There is no doubt that many of these matters are intricate and involve a lot of investigation. I therefore welcome this opportunity of giving a little publicity to the railways, which I hope has been good publicity and not bad.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Five o'Clock.